IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.647 OF 2007 (M/S) Salim Khan and another ……… Petitioners Versus Gulsher and others .…… Respondents Dated: May 5, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226/227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.3.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector, First Class, Roorkee in Case No.4/2005 under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, Gulsher and others Vs. S.P.G. Mission and others. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 moved an application u/s 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act before the court of Assistant Collector First Class, Roorkee on 19.1.2000, on the ground that over Khasra Nos.254/1, 255/1 and 256/1 Village Malakpur Latifpur, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, the name of their father, namely, Abdul Wahid was recorded in revenue record, but the name of their father has been deleted from the revenue record and name of S.P.G. Mission has been mutated in its place. Objections were filed by the petitioners as well as by the S.P.G. Mission stating that father of respondents had surrendered his occupancy 2 rights in favour of S.P.G. Mission and thereafter the petitioners purchased the land in dispute from S.P.G. Mission vide registered sale deed dated 30.6.1970. After hearing the parties, learned Sub Division Magistrate/Assistant Collector First Class, Roorkee passed an order dated 31.3.2003 whereby the application filed by respondent no.1 to 3 was dismissed. It was also directed to Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Roorkee to file a Declaration Suit in the competent court since the name of Central Government of India was recorded in 1406 Fasli. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment dated 31.3.2003, respondent nos.1 to 3 preferred a revision before Commissioner Garhwal, Garhwal Mandal bearing Revision No.26 of 2002-03. The same was partly allowed by the Commissioner vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2004 and matter was remanded to Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector First Class, Roorkee. Thereafter, when the matter was remanded to Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector First Class, Roorkee, he vide its order dated 26.3.2007 restrained the sale of Khasra Nos.254/1, 255/1 and 256/1 till the disposal of suit. Against the said order dated 26.3.2007, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court. I have heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mahavir Singh Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondents no.1, 2/1 to 2/5 and also perused the record. Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the interim order dated 26.3.2007 has been passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant 3 Collector First Class, Roorkee, without any application of the parties. He confined his prayer only up to the extent that the order dated 26.3.2007 retraining sale of aforementioned land may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the court below. Sri Mahavir Singh Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he has got no objection if the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is allowed. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, order dated 26.3.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector First Class, Roorkee, restraining sale of Khasra Nos.254/1, 255/1 and 256/1, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector First Class, Roorkee, who is directed to decide the case, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Interim order dated 21.6.2007 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 5.5.2010 Rajni