IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 4557 of 2001 (Old No. 38258 of 1998) The State of U.P. (now Uttarakhand) through Competent Authority. … Petitioner. Versus Nathi Ram and another … Respondents. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner-review applicant. None is present for the opposite party-respondent no. 1. Date June 23, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Review application No. 55 of 2010) (Delay Condonation Application No. 887 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-review applicant and perused the record. This review application no. 55 of 2010 has been moved by the petitioner to review/recall the order dated 21-12-2006 passed by this Court, whereby the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Since the review application has been moved belatedly, therefore, the application is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The delay condonation application is supported by an affidavit. Grounds mentioned in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned. The review application has been moved on the ground that the land in question was vested with the State under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the possession was taken by the State. By a perusal of the possession certificate, which has been annexed along with the review application, it reveals that it bears no signatures of the tenure holder and it is a document of the possession, shown to be given to the M.D.D.A., by the revenue authorities. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the possession 2 had been taken from the tenure holder. In this view of the matter, I find no error in the judgment sought to be reviewed. The judgment under review has been passed by this Court on merits. No good ground is made out in the review application. The review application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. The review application no.55 of 2010 is accordingly dismissed. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP