IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 103 of 2008 Date of decision : 8.5.2009 Gian Chand …Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents 1 & 2: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) By means of this letter patent appeal the appellant has challenged the Judgement dated 1st July, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court upholding the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, (Appeals), Shimla dated 12th May, 2006. Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application for resumption of some land under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). This application was dismissed by the Land Reforms Officer on 11th March, 1976. No appeal was filed against this application. However, on 26th December, 1990 i.e. more than 14 and ½ years after the orders had been passed the petitioner submitted an application to the Land Reforms Officer to trace 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 out the file containing his application. Thereafter he filed an appeal which was dismissed by the District Collector, Mandi on 3.10.1994. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, allowed the second appeal filed by the petitioner on 7.10.1996. The respondents then approached the Financial Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) held that the petitioner has failed to given any explanation as what he had been doing from 1976 to 1990 to pursue his application. He, therefore, set-aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly held that the petitioner has failed to explain what he was doing from 11.3.1976 till 26.12.1990. Even after 26.12.1990 he did not pursue the matter and filed another similar application on 17.12.1992. It is apparent that the petitioner slept over his rights, if any. At this belated stage, he could not be permitted to rake up matters which had become stale. We, therefore, find no error in the judgement of the learned Single Judge. The letter patent appeal is dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 8th May, 2009. ( V.K.Ahuja ) ™ Judge.