IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (M/S) No 4762 of 2001. (Old CMWP No. 37727 of 1993) Prem Chand son of Inder Singh, R/O village Piliparan, Pargana Jwalapur, Tahsil and District Haridwar. ...Petitioner. Vs. Additional District Magistrate/ Collector, Hardwar and two others. ...Respondents. Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State – respondent nos. 1&2. Date November 04, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admit the petition. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 26-8-1993 passed by respondent no. 1 and the judgment and orders dated 26-4-1993 and 20-11-1992 passed by the respondent no. 2. 3. A perusal of record shows that proceedings under section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were initiated against the petitioner pursuant to a notice issued in Form 49 – Kthe petitioner filed objection before respondent no.2 claiming his old abadi/possession prior to Zamindari abolition and that the disputed property never belonged to the Gaon Sabha. Therefore, the said land stood settled with the petitioner. According to the petitioner , the respondent No. 2 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed ex parte order on 20-11-1992 ordering eviction of the petitioner with a direction to pay damages. The petitioner moved restoration application to set aside the ex parte order, which was allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 40/- by order dated 2-1-1993. Since the petitioner did not pay the costs, hence the order dated 2- 1- 1993 was recalled and the order dated 20-11-1992 was maintained. The petitioner again moved recall application which, too, was dismissed by order dated 26-4-1993 by respondent no.2. The revision preferred by the petitioner before respondent no. 1 was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26-8-1993, which gave rise to the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 31-7-2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4758 of 2001, Karam Chand Vs. Additional District Magistrate/Collector, Hardwar and others, therefore, the present writ petition may be allowed in terms of the said order. 6. I have perused the order dated 31-7-2008. By that order, the matter has been remanded to the trial court to decide the case on merits. Eviction of the petitioner has also been stayed conditionally for a period of four months. The present matter is also on the same footing. The writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of order dated 31-7-2008. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 31-7-2008 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 4758 of 2001, Karam Chand Vs. Additional District Magistrate/Collector, Hardwar and others. Impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court, which shall decide the case on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. If the petitioner appears before the trial court within one month from today, the eviction shall be stayed for four months. (B.S Verma,J.) RCP