IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 585 of 2001 (M/S) Smt. Harbans Kaur, w/o Sri Mohan Lal, r/o Alakh Devi, Tehsil Gadarpur, District Udhamsingh Nagar. …..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal through Collector Udham singh Nagar and three others. …..Respondents. Sri C.S. Dumaka, advocate holding brief for Sri V.S. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State respondent nos. 1 to 4. Date :- November 20, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to pass an appropriate order in Revision No. 10 of 2000, Smt. Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Uttaranchal through Collector (Stamp), Udhamsingh Nagar as soon as possible in the interest of justice. The petitioner has further prayed that mandamus be issued directing the respondent nos. 3 and 4 not to give effect to the impugned order dated 4.11.2000 passed by respondent no. 3 and impugned order dated 20.1.2001 passed by respondent no. 4 respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had filed before the commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital- respondent no. 2 along with interim injunction application to stay the recovery. the respondent no. 2 did not pass any order on the interim relief application. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and by perusal of the impugned order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Udhamsingh Nagar- the respondent no. 3, it appears that it is a case of recovery deficit stamp duty. According to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed by the respondent no. 3 without any reference by the Sub-registrar or any court under Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that at this stage direction can be given to the respondent no. 2 for disposal of revision. If the revision has not been decided on merit, the learned respondent no. 2 may decide the revision. Without entering into the merit of the case, the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital is directed to decide the Revision No. 10 of 2000 (Smt. Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Uttaranchal) filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months, if the revision has not already been decided. Till the pendency of the revision, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner. With the said observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma J.) Dated: 20.11.2008. RMY