HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2411 of 2025

19^th September, 2025

Maheshanand and others ………..Petitioners

Versus

Yatendra Singh Negi and another …………Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Tribhuwan Chandra Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate for the respondents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by the petitioners is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.03.1969 (wrongly written 18.03.1969), passed by learned Assistant Collector, Pali, Ranikhet, Almora in Case No.20 of 1968- 69, annexure no.2 to the writ petition, as well as the judgment and order dated 23.07.2025, passed by the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, in Revision No.9 of 2024-25 (Previous Revision No.60 of 2021-22), annexure no.8, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed as being highly time barred and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay has been

rejected.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that an order was passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Pali, Ranikhet, Almora on 10.03.1969 in Case No.20 of 1968-69 and vide this order the name of grandfather of the respondents i.e., Umrao Singh S/o Mal Singh was recorded in respect of the land in-question in revenue

record settlement Khatoni No.20 on the correction application moved by Umaro Singh S/o Mal Singh.

3. This order dated 10.03.1969 is challenged by the petitioners by filing a revision before the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital. The revision was highly time barred therefore an application has been moved by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay of 53 years on the ground that the order dated 10.03.1969 has come to their knowledge in the month of December, 2021 when the respondents came to the house of the petitioners and informed them that they were selling the land and the said land belonged to them.

4. The said application was opposed by the respondents by filing a detailed objection wherein it has been stated that the petitioners were in the knowledge of the order dated 10.03.1969 and they knew about the order during the time of their predecessors; the correction was made on the application of the grandfather of respondents-Umrao Singh S/o Mal Singh in the year 1969 and there is no sufficient reason for condoning the delay.

5. The said application for condoning the delay in filing the revision against the order dated 10.03.1969 has been rejected by the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.07.2025. It is feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2025 the petitioners are before this Court as stated above.

6. I have perused the record carefully along with delay condonation application and its objection along with the impugned order dated 23.07.2025.

7. Learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, has been categorical enough to say that there is nothing on record to condone the inordinate delay of 53 years as no cause for such a long delay has been given by the petitioners and no facts and documents are produced to substantiate their version to condone the delay, while the respondents have categorically stated that name of the petitioners were recorded in the khatoni in-question as the successor and for that reason they had full knowledge of the revenue record. Respondents are right in saying that such a long delay of 53 years cannot be condoned in a cursory manner only on bald saying that the petitioners did get the knowledge of the order dated

10.03.1969, in the month of December, 2021.

8. The reason assigned by the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, are convincing enough therefore no interference as such is warranted.

in limine

9