IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 260/2011 (M/S) Naresh Kumar & Anr. .…. Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others. .… Respondents February 11, 2011 HON’BLE PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel, present for the State. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 3. Urgency application no. 778 of 2011 is allowed. Heard. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.1.2011, passed by the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand in Revision No. 07 of 2010-11, whereby the said authority has stayed the operation of status quo order, passed by the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division on 8.12.2010 in Revision No. 13 of 2007-08, pending before him. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners instituted a suit, for declaration of bhumidhari rights, under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, before Assistant Collector, Haridwar. It appears that an amendment application was moved, which was allowed by the said authority, against which respondent no. 3 filed a revision before the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division. In the said revision, order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute was 2 passed. Aggrieved by the said order dated 8.12.2010, the respondent no. 3 appears to have filed revision before the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, wherein the impugned order, staying the operation of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, was passed. Hence, this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioners. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that after the status quo order was stayed by the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, respondent no. 3 has entered into an agreement to transfer the property in dispute. In reply to this, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3 argued that order of status quo itself was passed behind the back of the answering respondent, after three years of filing of the revision before the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this petition is summarily disposed of directing the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand to pass fresh orders on the stay application, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after giving opportunity to the parties. Meanwhile, any transfer of the property in dispute, if already made, shall be subject to the order passed by the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand on the stay application. (Stay application no. 768 of 2011 stands disposed of.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Vacation Judge 11.2.2011 PRABODH