CIVIL APPEAL 9874 of 2013 on 30 December 2013

1. CWP No. 9874 of 2013Ravinder Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P & others. …Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No. 9875 of 2013Chet Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P & others. …Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No. 9876 of 2013Dole Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P & others. …Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No. 9877 of 2013Daulat Ram & another … Petitioner Versus State of H.P & others. … Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No. 9890 of 2013Ram Dev …Petitioner Versus State of H.P & others. …Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. CWP No. 9891 of 2013Ved Ram Chauhan …Petitioner Versus State of H.P & others. …Respondents

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R Palsara, Advocate.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Sanjay karol, J. (oral)

Since common questions are involved in these petitions, they are being considered and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Petitioners have prayed mainly for the following relief(s):-

1. “i)

“i)

3. “i)

4. “i)

CWP No. 9874 of 2013

That the order dated 29.11.2013, Annexure P-2 passed by respondent No.4 and the order dated 9.1.2013, Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No.2 , may kindly be quashed by issuing the writ of certiorari.”CWP No. 9875 of 2013

That the order dated 29.11.2013, Annexure P-2 passed by respondent No.4 and the order dated 9.1.2013, Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No. 2, may kindly be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari.” CWP No. 9876 of 2013

That the order dated 29.11.2013, Annexure P-2

passed by respondent No.4 and the order dated 5.1.2013, Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No. 2, may kindly be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari.” CWP No. 9877 of 2013That the order dated 29.11.2013, Annexure P-2 passed by respondent No.4 and the order dated 9.1.2013, Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No. 2, may kindly be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari.” 5.CWP No. 9890 of 2013

“i)That the order dated 29.11.2013, Annexure P-2

passed by respondent No.4 and the order dated 5.1.2013, Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No. 2, may kindly be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari.” dated 5.1.2013, Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No. 2, may kindly be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari.”

6. CWP No. 9891 of 2013

“i)That the order dated 29.11.2013, Annexure P-2 passed by respondent No.4 and the order dated 9.1.2013, Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No. 2, may kindly be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari.” passed by respondent No.4 and the order dated 9.1.2013, Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No. 2, may kindly be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari.”

3. Annexure P-1 is the order dated 9.1.2013 ( in CWP Nos. 9874, 9875, 9877 of 2013), 5.1.2013(in CWP No. 9876 & 9891 of 2013) and 29.12.2013 (in CWP No. 9890 of 2013),passed by Collector–cum-DFO (Hqrs)-cum-DFO GHPN Shamshi, whereby, petitioners were declared encroachers upon public land and were directed to be evicted.

4. Annexure P-2 is the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners, seeking condonation of delay, in filing the appeals assailing the order(s) of ejectment.

5. We find in fact delay stands sufficiently explained by the petitioners. In each of these cases, delay is not more than 68 days. In a tabulated form, the date of

passing of order; date of filing of appeals and the number of days of delay is indicated as under:-

6. We find that the order was passed by the Collector on 5.1.2013, 9.1.2013 and 29.12.2013 (Annexure P-1 in the respective petitions). Petitioners hail from different villages of Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu which is a snow bound area. Some of these areas are also unapproachable by road and have to be travesed on foot. Also there were vacations in the Court, at that point in time. As such, delay in each of these cases, in our considered view, stands sufficiently explained by each of the petitioners. The appellate authority failed to take into account the factual position existing on the ground and insensitively and summarily rejected the applications/ appeals without due and proper consideration or application of mind. Petitioners hail from rural background. They are illiterate and ignorant of the procedures of law.

7. The authority below also erred in rejecting the applications for the reason that petitioners were duly represented by their Advocates before the Collector. Rejection is absolutely mechanical and without logic. Authority failed to appreciate that for filing appeals, petitioners had to engage a fresh counsel which could be done only after communication of the information of the outcome of these cases and receipt of the order from their previous Advocate(s).

8. As such, in each of these cases, we condone the delay. Applications to this effect stand allowed and disposed of on the file of appellate authority.

9. We direct the appellate authority to register the appeals and decide the same before 30.6.2014, in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing/representation to all concerned, including the present petitioners. We direct the parties to appear before the appellate authority on 30.1.2014.

With the aforesaid observations, present petitions stand disposed of, as also pending application(s), if any.

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

30[th] December, 2013 (Priti/KS)

(V.K Sharma), Judge.