IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 572 of 2008 Decided on : 5.4.2010. Mohan Lal …Petitioner. Versus H.P.Housing Board ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. C.N.Singh, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner in the petition has prayed for quashing of Annexure P-4 dated 21.5.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Solan and Annexure P-7 dated 14.1.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division. The relevant facts necessary to determine the dispute are that respondent had filed execution petition No.5/11 of 2000, main case No.21/13-A of 1994 before the Sub Divisional Collector, Solan which was decided on 21.5.2003 vide Annexure P-4. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 48996/- on account of unauthorized use and occupation of the premises w.e.f. 1.1.1985 to 11.4.1996 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum as assessed by the Chairman 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 of the respondent and communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 29.12.1998 within one month from the date of order passed by Sub Divisional Collector, Solan, failing which the appellant shall also be liable to pay further interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above amount till realization of the said amount as arrears of land revenue. It was further ordered that copy of the order dated 21.5.2003 be sent to appellant by registered post for compliance. 2. The petitioner filed appeal on 5.7.2004 under Section 9 of the H.P.Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also filed. The Divisional Commissioner declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the same on 14.1.2008 vide Annexure P-7. The petitioner in the petition has assailed the orders dated 21.5.2003 and 14.1.2008. 3. The petition has been contested in which preliminary objection of maintainability has been taken that the H.P.Housing Board is no more in existence, rather Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority has been established. It has also been submitted that litigation has been finally disposed of by this court vide order dated 27.5.1999 passed in CWP No. 424 of 1998. The petitioner was an unauthorized occupant and he failed to vacate the premises which was acquired by the State for the construction of Housing Colony at Saproon, Solan. The petitioner has abused the process of law. On merits, it has been submitted that the order dated 14.12.1998 of the Chairman was not challenged. 3 The respondent has supported the orders of Sub Divisional Collector as well as Divisional Commissioner. 4. The controversy involved in the petition is very short. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed the appeal on 5.7.2004 against the order dated 21.5.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Solan before the Divisional Commissioner. In the condonation of delay application filed in the appeal, it has been stated that the impugned order dated 21.5.2003 was not served on the petitioner. He came to know of the impugned order when the Department informed him about the order and threatened to deduct the arrears of amount from his salary. On coming to know about the impugned order, the petitioner obtained the certified copy of impugned order which was supplied to him on 22.6.2004. The appeal was filed by him on 5.7.2004. 5. The petitioner in paragraph 4 of the petition has stated that he came to know about the order in the month of June, 2004, he applied for the copy and after receiving the copy filed the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner on 5.7.2004. This averment of the petitioner has not been specifically denied or met with by the respondent in the reply. The Divisional Commissioner has noted the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties but in para 6 of the impugned order dated 14.1.2008 has recorded that appellant is a Government official, he had been associated in the lower Court proceedings. Hence, he cannot take shelter on the ground of ignorance. There is no ground to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and therefore, the same was dismissed. 4 6. The Sub Divisional Collector in the order dated 21.5.2003 had ordered that the copy of the said order be sent to petitioner by registered post for compliance. The petitioner in the condonation of delay application before the Divisional Collector has stated that the order dated 21.5.2003 was not served on him as per directions of the Collector. The Divisional Commissioner has not recorded a finding that the order dated 21.5.2003 in fact was served on the petitioner in terms of order dated 21.5.2003. There is no finding that before 22.6.2004 the copy of order dated 21.5.2003 was available with the petitioner. The order dated 21.5.2003 does not indicate that it was passed in presence of counsel or representative of the petitioner. The Divisional Commissioner has not considered the condonation of delay application of the petitioner filed with the appeal in accordance with law and facts which were placed before the Divisional Commissioner. Therefore, the order dated 14.1.2008 Annexure P-7 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 7. No other point was urged. 8. The result of the above discussion, the petition is allowed, the order dated 14.1.2008 Annexure P-7 is set-aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division on 23.4.2010. The Divisional Commissioner is directed to decide the condonation of delay application and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.5.2003 in accordance with law. ( Kuldip Singh ), April 5, 2010 Judge. (GR) 5