IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 52 of 2009 Padam Ravinder Jeet Singh S/O Gurdeep Singh, R/O C-75 Greater Kailash, New Delhi and two others. ............Petitioners. Versus Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital and 12 others. ........Respondents. Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Date January 09, 2009. PC : Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 272 of 2009) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 19-5-2007 and 23-5-2007 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 1 respectively. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 is the son of late Gurdeep Singh, who was the original allottee of 350 Acres of land situated in village Narhera, Vijay Nagalia and Lakhanpur and he is presently working in the Indian Army. The petitioner no. 2 is the power of attorney holder of petitioner no.1. The petitioner no. 2 being a sitting M.L.A., has authorized the petitioner no. 3 as his attorney to contest the case. The present dispute has arisen out of an order passed by Assistant Record Officer, on 4-4-1964. The Assistant Record Officer passed an order to the effect that the father of the petitioner no. 1 was recorded on the basis of his being a hereditary tenant of the land in question total measuring 930 Bighas in different village as mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition. According to the petitioners, Parwana Amal Daramad was issued by the Assistant Collector/UP Zila Adhikari, Kashipur in compliance of the order dated 27-7-1979 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow in Revision No. 34 of 1975-76 to the Tahsildar Bazpur on 16-5-2007 (copy Annexure No. 9) and on the basis of the Parwana Amal Daramad, the entry was made in Khatauni on 19-5-2007. The grievance of the petitioners is that after the mutation of the name of the petitioner no. 1 in the revenue record, respondent no. 3 to 6 moved recall application before the Assistant Collector on the ground that before issuing Parwana Amal Daramad, they were not heard. The Assistant Collector/S.D.O., on their application, stayed the Amal Daramad of Parwana dated 16-5- 2007 by his order dated 19-5-2007. The respondent nos. 7 to 13 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital against the order dated 16-5-2007 issuing Parwana Amal Daramad by the Assistant Collector. The appeal (No. 43 of 220-07, Mohan Singh and six others Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and another was admitted on 23-5-2007 and the operation of the order passed by the Assistant Collector was stayed. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Commissioner did not mention as to operation of which order has been stayed by his order dated 23-5-2007. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the learned Commissioner, Kumaun Division shall decide the stay vacation application of the petitioners within a period of 15 days and the appeal No. 43/2006- 07, Mohan Singh and others Vs. Sukhdeo Singh expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks without any further delay in the matter from the date of production of certified copy of this order and while deciding the appeal finally, the learned Commissioner shall also consider the contention of the petitioners whether the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 7 to 13 is maintainable or not. The Assistant Collector, 1st Class/UP Zila Adhikari, Kashipur is also directed to decide the application of the respondent nos. 3 to 6, which has been filed on 19-5-2007 in Revenue Case No. 25/72 of 1966-67 after hearing the petitioners expeditiously as far as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Assistant Collector concerned while taking up this matter shall also see whether the tenure holder can hold the land more than the ceiling limit as prescribed under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960? With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP