IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 445 of 2007 M/s Multiple Associates, 10 Mohabewala Industrial Estate, District, Dehradun, through its Partner Sri Suresh Chand Yadav, S/O Sri Ram Singh Yadav, R/o 763, Indira Nagar, District Dehradun. …. Petitioner. Vs. Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and others. …. Respondents. WITH (1) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 446 of 2007. M/s Multiple Associates, 10 Mohabewala Industrial Estate, District, Dehradun, through its Partner Sri Suresh Chand Yadav, S/O Sri Ram Singh Yadav, R/o 763, Indira Nagar, District Dehradun. …. Petitioner. Vs. Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and others. …. Respondents Ms. Nilima Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. (2) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 501 of 2007. Mahesh Chand Mathur S/O Sri K.D. Mathur, R/O 180, Nari Shilp Mandir Marg, Chakrata Road, Dehradun. … Petitioner. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri and others. … Respondents. (3) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 502 of 2007. Mahesh Chand Mathur S/O Sri K.D. Mathur, R/O 180, Nari Shilp Mandir Marg, Chakrata Road, Dehradun. … Petitioner. Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri and others. … Respondents. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Ms. Nilima Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Date April 15, 2009. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Since the controversy involved in all the four writ petitions is similar and between the same parties, therefore for the sake of convenience, they are being heard together and decided by this common order at the admission stage. Relevant facts, giving rise to these petitions, in brief, are that the plaintiff-petitioner M/s Multiple Associates had filed two separate Suits under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (now Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act) (for short the Act) against the defendants Rishi Bansal and others including Mahesh Chand Mathur, who is one of the defendants in the suits, before the Assistant Collector, 1st Class/Sub Divisional Officer, Dehradun, one registered as Suit No. 47 of 2006- 2007 and the other Suit No. 54 of 2007 pertaining to the land of village Danda Lakhaund. Along with the suits, the plaintiff M/s Multiple Associates also filed an application under Section 80(2) of the C.P.C. (for short the Code) However, the Assistant Collector after hearing the plaintiff, did not find favour with the plaintiff and rejected the application under Section 80(2) of the Code by separate order dated 9- 4-2007 passed in each suit and directed that the suits be admitted after two months as has been provided under the said Section of the Code. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner M/s Multiple Associates preferred separate revisions before the Commissioner Garhwal Division Pauri, which were registered as Revision No. 20/2006-07 and Revision No. 21 of 2006-07. The revisions were heard by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Garhwal Division, Pauri. Ultimately, the learned Additional Commissioner Allowed both the revision vide separate order dated 16-4-2007. The revisional court set aside the order dated 9-4-2007 passed by the trial court. The application under Section 80(2) of the Code was allowed and it was directed that the suits be registered and be decided on merits. A further direction was given that till the disposal of application under Section 229D of the Act, which was pending on that day along with the suit, both the parties shall maintain status quo on the spot and they were also directed not to construct and transfer the suit land. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no. 2 Mahesh Chand Mathur (one of the defendants in the two suits) also preferred separate revisions before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (for short A.C.R.C.), which were registered as Z.A. Revision No. 83 of 2006-07 and 84 of 2006-07. The learned A.C.R.C. after hearing the parties partly allowed the revisions by a common order dated 4-5-2007 and the part of the impugned order dated 16-4-2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of application under Section 229D of the Act has been set aside. The order allowing the application under Section 80(2) of the Code has been upheld. It was directed that the application under Section 229D of the Act be decided after hearing both the parties. The status quo order passed by the Additional Commissioner was set-aside on the ground that the parties were not heard on the application. Challenge in the writ petitions preferred by M/s Multiple Associates is to the order dated 4-5-2007 passed by the learned A.C.R.C. while challenge in the writ petition preferred by defendant Mahesh Chand Mathur is to the impugned order dated 16-4-2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner and the order dated 4-5-2007 passed by the A.C.R.C. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The learned A.C.R.C. only set aside the finding of interim order of status quo passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, which was passed without hearing both the parties. So far as the allowing of the application under Section 80(2) of the Code is concerned, no prejudice is caused to the private respondents. Only the State is an affected party. The State may file objection if is so desires against the application under Section 229D of the Act. In the view of above facts and circumstances, I find no error of law in the impugned order passed by the learned A.C.R.C. The interim relief application under Section 229D of the Act has to be decided after hearing the parties. All the four writ petitions being devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, it is directed that the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Dehradun, is directed to decide the application under Section 229-D of the Act on merits in each suit after hearing both the parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP