JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Delay Condonation Application no. 2 of 2022. Delay condonation application is not seriously opposed by the respondents and the reasons as given in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application are also appears to be satisfactory. Hence, the delay condonation application no. 02 of 2022 is allowed and the present appeal is treated to be well within time. 2. The present special appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 05.09.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1954 of 2022. 3. We perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and it appears from the judgment that the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the issue, as raised in the petition, is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of ‘Bhagwan Singh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 470 of 2017, which was decided on 10.05.2018. The counsel for the appellant submits that, in fact, the issue as raised in the petition is covered by the judgment rendered in the case of ‘Vimla Devi vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ i.e. Writ Petition No. 831 of 2009 decided on 30.05.2014. The copy of the said judgment dated 30.05.2014 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 831 of 2009 is also appended to the writ petition as Annexure-15. 4. We also perused the judgment rendered in WPMS No. 470 of 2017 ‘Bhagwan Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’, which, in fact was decided on 10.05.2018, and on perusal of the said judgment, it reveals that the judgment was rendered in the said case, after taking into consideration of the Government Order dated 27.07.1983. At this juncture, the relevant extract of the said judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 470 of 2017 is being quoted hereinbelow : “3. Having considered the merits of the case, there is absolutely no doubt that since there is a Government Order dated 27.07.1983, which says that in cases where both husband and wife have separate lands in their respective names, have to be considered as one displaced family. Therefore, the eligibility of the petitioner’s mother and his father has rightly been assessed as one unit.” 5. Therefore, the eligibility of the petitioner’s mother and his father has rightly been assessed as one unit.” 5. The Government Order dated 27.07.1983, the reference of which has been given in the judgment dated 10.05.2018, is also annexed in the petition as Annexure-13. The copy of the said Government Order is very relevant and is being extracted hereinbelow : ^^Ás"kd] Jh ,eå ohå ekFkqj la;qDr lfpo] flapkà mrj Áns'k y[kuÅ lsok esa] Jh fotsUnz iky] iquokZl funs'k fVgjh cka/k ifj;kstuk uà fVgjh la[;k% 934@fla&3@Vh 7 eålå@83 fnukad 27 tqykÃ] 1983 fo"k;% Mwc {ks= esa fLFkr Hkwfe ifj;kstuk gsrq d; o vtZu djus ,sls ifr o iRuh ftuds Hkwfe jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa Hkwfe ntZ gS dks i`Fkd&i`Fkd foLFkkfir ifjokj ekuus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;d ds lEcU/k esa ;g lwfpr djuk gS fd fVgjh fu;a=.k ifj"kn us viuk lIre cSBd esa tks fd fnukad 30-06-83 dks lEiUu gqà esa mDr fo"k; ij en la[;k 07 ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;k gSA fopkj foe'kZ ds mijkUr ;g r; gqvk fd Hkwfe vtZu djrs le; ,sls ifr o iRuh ftuds uke jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa i`Fkd&i`Fkd Hkwfe ntZ gS dks ,d gh foLFkkfir ifjokj ekuk tk;s vkSj mlh ds vuqlkj Hkwfe vkoaVu dh tk;s ;k U;wure Áfrdj dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sA vr% eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd Hkwfe vtZu djrs le; ,sls ifr o iRuh ftuds uke jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa i`Fkd&i`Fkd Hkwfe ntZ gS dks ,d gh foLFkkfir ifjokj ekuk tk;s vkSj mlh ds vuqlkj Hkwfe vkoaVu dh tk;s ;k U;wure Áfrdj dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sA Hkonh;] ¼Jh ,eåohå ekFkqj½ la;qDr lfpo] flapkÃ** 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this Court, while passing the judgment and order dated 30.05.2014 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 831 of 2009, had not taken into consideration the Government Order dated 27.07.1983. He further submits that in the subsequent judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 470 of 2017, the aforesaid Government Order dated 27.07.1983 was taken into consideration and, therefore, the issue as raised in the petition is squarely covered by the subsequent judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 470 of 2017 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the petition by observing that the matter is covered by the said judgment. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that there is no challenge to the Government Order dated 27.07.1983 though the impugned order was passed after taking into consideration the aforesaid Government Order dated 27.07.1983. Not only this, even the report of the Committee is also based upon the said Government Order dated 27.07.1983, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. 8. We perused the relief, as sought in the petition, and it is clearly evident that there is no challenge to the Government Order No. 934@fla&3@Vh 7 e0l0@83 fnukad 27 tqykbZ] 1983- 9. After examining both the judgments rendered by this Court dated 30.05.2014 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 831 of 2009 ‘Vimla Devi vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’ as well as the judgment and order dated 10.05.2018 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 470 of 2017 ‘Bhagwan Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’, we find that the subject matter of the writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 470 of 2017 ‘Bhagwan Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others’. We are of the view that the judgment in Vimla Devi is not the correct view since it was rendered in ignorance of the Government Order dated 27.07.1983 and without hearing the affected party i.e. THDC. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the petition by the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2022. 10. We do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge. Hence, there is no merit in the present special appeal and, consequently, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.