Reserved order IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 613 of 2010. 1. Rakesh Khurana S/O Sri Amar Nath Khurana, R/O Adhoiwala Road, Karanpur Chowk, District Dehradun. 2. Surchita Khurana W/O Sri Rakesh Khurana, R/O Adhoiwala Road, Karanpur Chowk, District Dehradun. … Petitioners. Vs. 1. Liyaqat Ali S/O Sri Ramzan R/O Village Selakui, Pargana Pachwadoon, District Dehradun. 2. Gaon Sabha, Village Ghorankhas, through its Pradhan, Pargana Parwadoon, Tahsil & District Dehradun. 3. State of Uttarakhand, through Collector, District Dehradun (Defendants). 4. Forest Department, Mussoorie, District Dehradun. 5. State Infrastructure & Industrial Development Corporation, Uttarakhand, District Dehradun. 6. Smt. Jaitoon W/O Late Abdul Majeed, 7. Smt. Sameena W/O Late Shariff. Both R/O Village Jamanpur Selakui, District Dehradun through their attorney Sri Aarif S/O Sri Rizwan, R/O Village Jamanpur, Selakui, District Dehradun. …Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 3 and 4. Mr. M.C.Pande and Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Advocates, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. Date May 13, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 10.2.2010 and 24.2.2010 passed by the revisional court, i.e. Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (Annexure Nos. 11 and 13 to the writ petition. By the order dated 10-2-2010, the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner passed the order to the effect that since the lower court record is received, therefore, the interim order dated 17-4-2009, whereby the revisional court had stayed the operation of the orders impugned in the revision, is not extended and file was ordered to be put up on 24-2-2010. By the order dated 24-2-2010, the revisional court, on the application moved on behalf of 2 the SIDCUL-respondent no.5, has restrained the parties not to change the nature of the land in question and they were directed to maintain status quo till further orders. 2. According to the petitioners, the respondent nos. 6 and 7, Smt. Jaitoon and Sameena, had filed a Suit No. 12 of 2002-2003 Smt. Jaitoon and another Vs. State and two others, under Section 229-B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, in the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Dehradun, for declaration, which was decreed on 19-5-2004 in favour of the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Rafeeq and there is no order of any competent court to delete the name of Rafeeq from the suit land since Rafeeq was recorded Bhumidhar in Khata No. 90, in the Khatauni of 1375 to 1377 Fasli. It was also ordered that the names of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 be mutated in place of Forest Gram Samaj in the revenue record. 3. It appears that the Divisional Forest Officer, Mussoorie Forest Division, having been aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19-5-2004, filed review application on 25-11-2004 before the Assistant Collector 1st Class Dehradun, which was ultimately allowed vide order dated 2-2-2005, whereby the judgment and decree dated 19- 5-2004 was set aside. It was ordered that Mussoorie Forest Division is impleaded as party to the suit. 4. The petitioners claim to be Bhumidhar and in possession of the disputed land on the basis of the sale deeds dated 24-5-2004 and 28-12-2004 in their favour, executed on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 and they preferred an appeal bearing Appeal No. 04 of 2004-05 before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri Garhwal. The said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 24-9-2007 and the appellate court confirmed the order dated 2-2-2005 passed by the trial court on review application and liberty was given to the SIDCUL-respondent no. 5 to move an application before the trial 3 court for impleadment and it was also directed that the same shall be decided by the trial court on merits. 5. Further, aggrieved by the order dated 24-9-2007 passed in appeal, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 preferred Revision No. 103 of 2008-09 before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, wherein the petitioners were not made party to the revision, while this revision was preferred against the judgment and order dated 24-9-2007 passed in Appeal No. 04 of 2004-05, which was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 2-2-2005 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class and they were necessary party. At the time of admission of revision, the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner stayed the operation of the impugned orders by his order dated 17-4-2009. 6. On 10-2-2010, the order passed on 17-4-2009 was not extended on the ground that the lower court record had been received and the application of the petitioners for impleadment as party in the revision was fixed for hearing for 24-2-2010. On 24-2-2010, the counsel for the petitioners, counsel of the SIDCUL and Forest Department were heard. The petitioners had also filed the order passed by Additional District Judge/IV F.T.C. Dehradun dated 5-2- 2010, whereby the order of the trial court granting ex parte injunction order dated 25-1-2010 restraining the respondent no.5-SIDCUL not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff-petitioners was upheld and direction was given to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) to decide the temporary injunction application (paper no. 6C2) on merits. 7. The suit for permanent injunction (O.S. No. 15 of 2010) filed by the petitioners against the respondent no. 5 is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dehradun and there is no document on record to show that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge/IV F.T.C. was assailed before this Court. Even though, the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner appears to have prima facie sat over the orders passed by the Civil Court and modified its earlier dated 17-4-2009, whereby operation of 4 the impugned order dated 2-2-2005 and order dated 24-9-2007 were stayed and directed the parties to maintain status quo and not to change the nature of the land in question. 8. It reveals from a perusal of the record that by the order dated 24-2-2010 direction was given to maintain status quo by the parties, passed by the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, thereby both orders, i.e. order dated 10-2-2010, whereby, the interim order dated 17-4-2009 was not extended by the revisional court and the order dated 5-2-2010, passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2010 by the Additional District Judge/IV F.T.C., Dehradun stood modified. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 5-SIDCUL. The respondent no. 5 claims that the land in dispute has been given to it by the Forest Department and they are claiming their possession over the land in dispute. In support of its contention, the respondent no. 5 has filed revenue documents to indicate that the land is recorded in the name of Van Gaon Samaj under the management of Forest Department. According to its stand also, the land in question is under the management of Forest Department and the land belongs to Forest Gaon Samaj. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner. 11. Interesting facts of the case are that the revenue suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector in favour of respondent nos. 6 and 7 and the petitioners allege themselves to be Bhumidhar-owners of the land on the basis of sale deeds executed in their favour on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7. In the suit under Section 229-B of the Z.A. and L.R. Act, the State and Gaon Sabha are the necessary parties and the respondent nos. 6 and 7, who are plaintiffs, have arrayed State of U.P. through Collector Dehradun and Gaon Sabha through Village 5 Pradhan and one Liyakat Ali, who claimed to be in possession. Forest Department is also one of the departments of the State Government having no independent status other than the State Government and according respondent no. 5, the SIDCUL claims to be the transferee of the land by way of allotment, after the suit was decreed. 12. A bare perusal of the order dated 2-2-2005 passed on review application reveals that no notice was ever issued to the respondent no. 6 and 7 in whose favour the judgment and decree was passed by the Assistant Collector. Since the petitioners claim themselves to be Bhumidhar on the basis of sale deeds executed in their favour on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 and 7, they preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 24-9-2007. Against that order, the respondent no. 6 and 7 preferred the revision before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, wherein the impugned orders were passed. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also informed the Court that their clients have also filed revision. 14. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of hearing of revision on admission, the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner after prima facie satisfaction, stayed the operation of the impugned orders till the next date and lower court record was summoned, but by the order dated 10-2-2010 without assigning any reason, the interim order dated 17-4-2009 was not continued and thereafter, by order dated 24-2-2010, without considering the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. in the suit for permanent injunction and the order passed by the Additional District Judge/IV FT.C. Dehradun passed in Misc. Appeal, ordered the parties not to change the nature of the suit land and to maintain status quo. 15. Since the revision, which is pending before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner is yet to be decided on merits and prima 6 facie the order passed on the review application, which was passed on the application of the Divisional Forest Officer, who is an officer of Forest Department and he too was not a party to the suit before the Trial Court, while the State was a party through Collector. The veracity of the order is to be examined by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner whether the D.F.O. was competent to file the review application and whether the order is bad in law passed on the application without hearing the respondent no. 6 and 7 in whose favour the judgment and decree dated 19-5-2004 was passed by the trial court, i.e. Assistant Collector 1st Class Dehradun and the order was passed by Additional Commissioner also. Prima facie the impugned order has been passed on 24-2-2010 without considering the order passed by the Additional District Judge/IV F.T.C. in a cryptic manner. Leaned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner was not at all justified in ignoring the interim order dated 25-1-2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dehradun in Original Suit No. 15 of 2010, Ramesh Khurana and another Vs. State Infrastructures and Industrial Corporation Limited, which was confirmed and upheld in Misc. Appeal NO. 9 of 2010 State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Khurana and another by order dated 5-2- 2010. 16. In the above facts and circumstances, the order dated 24- 2-2010 shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of revision on merits and the order dated 17-4-2009 passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner shall continue. The learned Additional Chief Revenue commissioner is directed to decide the revision expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order without any further delay in the matter, without being influenced by the order passed by this Court. 17. The temporary injunction application (paper no. 6C2) is yet to be decided by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dehradun after hearing the objection under Order 39, Rule 4 C.P.C. However, it is also provided that if the respondent no. 5 is aggrieved by the order 7 passed by the Additional District Judge/IV F.T.C. Dehradun, it may move an application before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dehradun and, if the application is moved, the court concerned shall decide the temporary injunction application on merits, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without being influenced by the order dated 5-2- 2010 passed by the Additional District Judge/IV FTC Dehradun. 18. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP