Suraj Panwar And Others vs Uttarakhand Soldier Rehab. Officer, Pauri & Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of this petition, petitioner has raised a challenge to the judgment and order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Civil Appeal No.35 of 2021 (U.K. Solider Rehab. Officer v. Bhagwan Singh Panwar and another).

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Facts of the case are that an application was filed by Bhagwan Singh Panwar under Rule 10 r/w Rule 12 of the Uttarakhand/U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants) Rules, 1973, wherein, he prayed that the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the Court u/s 4/5 of the Uttarakhand/U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (to be referred as ‘the Act’ for brevity sake) in Case No.5 of 2013, State. V. Bhagwan Singh, may be set aside, whereby the case was dismissed in default of respondent no.1. The said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 06.08.2020 on the ground that the application was filed with delay of 2 years and 9 months, but no plausible explanation for delay was offered. Assailing the order dated 06.08.2020, an appeal was carried. Vide judgment dated 16.10.2023 passed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, the appeal was allowed with costs of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Pauri, and at the same time, the order dated 6.8.2020 was set aside, and the matter was restored to its number with the direction to the Prescribed Authority to decide the same on its merits. Assailing the said order, present petition is filed before this Court.

The main grievance of petitioner is that the costs of Rs.2,000/- on which the appeal of respondent no.1 had been allowed, was directed to be deposited in favour of District Legal Services Authority, Pauri, however, the costs ought to have been paid to the petitioner since it is he who has suffered due to the restoration of proceedings which were earlier dismissed in default of respondent no.1.

This Court finds substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner for the reason that the proceedings under the Act was initiated against the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority. The said proceedings was dismissed for default of respondent no.1 on 29.05.2017, where-against, after a considerable time i.e. 2 years and 9 months, an application u/s 10 of the Act was moved seeking its restoration. The said application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 06.08.2020. Thereafter, the appeal was filed which was allowed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, and the proceedings were directed to be restored to its original number.

In such view of the matter, the present petition is allowed in part with a caveat that the impugned judgment dated 16.08.2023 passed by the District Judge, Pauri is modified only to the extent that the costs of Rs.2,000/- imposed upon respondent no.1 shall be paid to the petitioner, instead of District Legal Services Authority, Pauri.

Inasmuch as the case is pending since 2013, the Prescribed Authority concerned is directed to conclude the proceedings of Case No.5 of 2013, pending before it, expeditiously.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.