IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 624 of 2009 (M/S) Col. Danwar Iqbal Inderjit Singh son of Col. Jagwant Singh and two others. ……….. Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Revenue Dehradun Uttarakhand and two others. ………. Respondents Sri D.S. Patni Sri Pooran Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Gopal Narain Srivastava, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. Dated: April 29, 2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- 1.Set aside the order dated 19-03-2008 and 4-3-2009 (Annexure No.2 & 9 to the writ petition) passed by the Appellate Authority in Ceiling Appeal No.2/2008-2009 between Iqbal Inderjeet Singh and others Vs. State and others and restore the ceiling appeal No.2 of 2008-2009 to its original number. 2. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. To award the cost of the petition. Bothe the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be decided finally at the admission stage without inviting the court affidavit. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was served upon the father of the petitioners, who filed objection in the case alleging that the land held by 13 other persons was wrongly clubbed with his holdings and some other objections were also taken in the matter. The learned Prescribed Authority did not find favour with the contention of the father of the petitioners and passed an order dated 30-6-1977 in Ceiling Case No.51/195 of 1975-76. From a perused of the record it appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal, which too was dismissed by the appellant Court i.e. 3rd Additional District Judge, Nainital, vide order dated 17-5-1977. It is obvious that the parents of the petitioners namely, Col. Jagwant Singh and Ran Pramindra Jit Kaur, preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2825 of 1997, which has been decided on 7th February 1979, whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the judgment of the appellate authority was quashed. The case was sent back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law. After remand of the case, according to the petitioners, no action was taken by the authorities concerned and during the pendency of the appeal, the father of the petitioners died in the year 2001. The petitioners being in the active defence service were not aware of the pendency of ceiling appeal. Notices were issued by the appellate court on 19-03-2008 and 17-07-2008 and it was presumed that the notices were served upon the petitioners through one Sri Ram Narayan. According to the petitioners, they were not informed regarding the pendency of the appeal or regarding the notices. On 19-03-2008, the Ceiling Appeal No.1 of 2006-07 Jagwant Singh Vs. State was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital. The petitioners came to know about the pendency of appeal quite late they moved restoration application. Along with restoration application, they also moved an application for condonation of delay. Copies of the same have been annexed as Annexed Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioners also moved substitution application duly supported by an affidavit before the court concerned. The petitioners also moved an application for setting aside the abatement accompanied by delay condonation application, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 7 and 8 to the writ petition. Accordingly to the petitioners, the learned court below have dismissed all the applications moved by the petitioners by order dated 4-3-2009. Having heard the submission by the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire material placed before this Court, it is evident that the Ceiling Appeal had not been decided by the appellate authority on merits as yet. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has not objection in case the applications moved by the petitioners i.e. restoration application along with delay condonation application and the application for setting aside abatement along with condonation application as well as the substitution application are allowed and the dismissal order dated 19-3-2008 dismissing the ceiling appeal for want of prosecution is set aside. The submission of the learned Brief Holder for the State is that the appellate authority be directed to decide the ceiling appeal on merits within a time bound period. I am also of the view that in order to meet the ends of justice in the matter and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the delay in filing the applications as mentioned above is condoned and the application for setting aside abatement, substitution application, the restoration application are liable to be allowed. The impugned order of dismissal dated 19-03-2008 passed by the Commissioner, Kumaun Division (respondent no.2) is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. In the above facts and circumstances of the case to meet ends of justice, the impugned order dated 4-3-2009 passed by the respondent no.2 is se aside. The delay in filing restoration application, substitution application as well as application setting aside abatement moved by the petitioners before the respondents is condoned. All these applications stand allowed. The Ceiling Appeal No. 1 of 2006- 2007 stands restored to its original number. The respondent no.2 shall give adequate opportunity to the petitioners to carry out substitution in the memo of appeal No.1/2006-07. The order dated 19-03-2008 passed by the respondent no.2 is also set aside. The appellate authority shall decide the ceiling appeal on merits after hearing both the partiers expeditiously preferably within a period of six months form the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall also co-operate in the speedy disposal of the appeal before the respondent no.2. All pending application stands disposed of. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP