The main legal point established is the requirement of sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the equal application of the law to all parties, including the government, and the need for promptitude in government actions.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may be accepted and impugned orders Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-6 may be ordered to be quashed and set aside, resultantly application filed by respondent under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Divisional Commission, Shimla Divisional in Case No. 202/2020 may be ordered to be dismissed with costs upon respondent throughout. Any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that proceedings under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, were initiated against the petitioner by District Collector, Solan, which were decided in favour of the petitioner on 11.07.2014. An appeal was filed before Divisional Commissioner, Shimla by respondent against order dated 11.07.2014, passed by District Collector, Solan, registered as Revenue Appeal No. 202/2020. Since, the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, read with Section 64 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms, Act, was also filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Divisional Commissioner allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by respondent, vide order dated 21.10.2021. Petitioner herein, assailed the said order in Revision Petition before Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order dated 26.11.2021.

3. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.10.2021, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, Annexure P-4 in Revenue Appeal No. 202/2020 and order dated 26.11.2021, passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh in Appeal No. 02/2021. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned orders are against all canons of law. There was no justification for condonation of delay, still the Divisional Commissioner allowed the application by a non speaking and cryptic order. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh also failed to pass the order within the fourwalls of law. The impugned order passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, is the result of surmises and conjectures. It has not been appreciated that no credible reason, whatsoever, was assigned for huge delay that had occurred in filing the appeal, still the undue benefit was allowed in favour of the respondent by way of impugned orders.

4. In reply, respondent has submitted that orders passed by Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner (Appeals), are in accordance with law. In such view of the matter, a prayer has been made to uphold the impugned orders Annexures P-4 and P-6.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

6. The order assailed by respondent before Divisional Commissioner, Shimla in Review Appeal No. 202/2020 was passed by the District Collector, Solan on 11.07.2014. The appeal was filed in 2020. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it was averred that order dated 11.07.2014 came to the notice of respondent only on 20.09.2019, when the petitioner herein made a request for recommending her case to the Government. It was further averred that thereafter it was noticed that legal opinion had not been supplied by the Standing Counsel for the State. Inquiry was made from Shri Vijay Kumar Sultanpuri, the then Standing Counsel for the State, vide letter dated 21.10.2019. The Standing Counsel on 06.11.2019 explained that the legal opinion could not be furnished as the original record of the case was with District Revenue Officer, Solan. The legal opinion was state