HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1333 of 2010 (M/S) Ram Krishna Jayara .…Petitioner Versus District Judge, Uttarkashi & others ...Respondents Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Khera, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents 1 & 3. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2010 passed by District Judge, Uttarkashi in Civil Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2009 contained in Annexure 1 to this petition. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the petitioner would have every right to raise construction over such portion of Khasra plot no.3418, which is marked by the letters ‘C.D.E.F.’ in the map annexure with the report dated 27.03.2001 provided the petitioner does not encroach upon any portion of the passage of the plaintiff/respondent to reach his ‘Saw-mil’. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the trial court to decide the original Civil Suit No.09 of 2009 on merits, without being influenced by the observations made by the learned District Judge in its judgment dated 24.04.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2009. 2 IV. Issue any other writ, order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. V. Award cost of the petition to the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barkot issued a general notice to the public inviting tenders from general public to sell several plots of freehold Nazul land in auction. On 29.09.1995 petitioner participated in auction process regarding Plot No.3418/2 area 126 square meter. Eight more persons also participated in the auction process, in which one of the bidder was respondent no.2 who offered Rs.1,26,000/- for the land in question, whereas the petitioner bided for the highest sale consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- and ultimately his bid was accepted. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Uttarakashi, being the representative of the Governor of the State executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 08.09.1997 and accordingly, petitioner got actual physical possession of the land. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned sale deed dated 08.09.1997, the respondent no.2 filed an Appeal before the Revenue Court of Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri. After entertaining the Appeal, the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri granted interim order in favour of respondent no.2 on 05.08.1998 directing the parties to maintain status quo on the spot. Thus, due to status quo order, the petitioner could not raise any construction on the spot. Respondent no.2 was not satisfied by filing of an appeal, therefore, he instituted O.S. No.4 of 1998 in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Purola, Uttarkashi against the petitioner 3 for permanent injunction. But the respondent no.2 did not pursue the O.S. No.04 of 1998 and let the same be dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.11.1998. Respondent no.2 did not take steps to get the said suit restored and the dismissal order became final. Respondent no.2 also did not pursue the Revenue Appeal pending before the Commissioner, Pauri, as a result of which, record of the Revenue Appeal was weeded out. On 29.08.20009 respondent no.2 moved an application before Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Camp at Dehradun for grant of status quo order on the land in question. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri, passed fresh status-quo order on 31.08.2009. However, subsequently, the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri vide order dated 22.12.2009 vacated the status-quo order. Thereafter, the only remedy available for the respondent no.2 was to file a writ petition before this Court but he did not do that and the order dated 22.12.2009 also became final. But, on 25.08.2009 the respondent no.2 instituted a fresh Civil Suit No.09 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Purola, District Uttarkashi U/s 39/39 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking permanent injunction in respect of same dispute between the same parties. Alongwith the plaint respondent no.2 also filed an ad-interim injunction application. Petitioner filed preliminary objection in Civil Suit No.09 of 2009 about the maintainability of the Civil Suit and also filed objection against the ad-interim injunction application of respondent no.2. On 05.09.2009 Civil Judge (J.D.) Purola, District Uttarkashi rejected the ad-interim injunction application of the respondent no.2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and 4 order dated 05.09.2009, respondent no.2 preferred a Civil Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2009 in the Court of District Judge, Uttarkashi. The learned District Judge, Uttarkashi vide judgment and order dated 24.04.2010 allowed the appeal of respondent no.2 stating therein that petitioner would have no right to raise construction over the portion which is marked by the letters ‘C.D.E.F.’ in map (paper no.30-Ga). Against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2010 present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to the extent that petition may be disposed of with a direction to the District Judge that while deciding the case finally the trial court shall not be influenced by the observation made by the District Judge, Uttarkashi in his order dated 24.04.2010. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. 4. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide the Original Civil Suit No.09 of 2009 expeditiously on merit, without being influenced by the observation made by the District Judge, Uttarkashi in his judgment and order dated 24.04.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.11 of 2009. 5. Stay application no.6260 of 2010 also stands disposed of. (V.K.Bist. J,) 12.08.2010 Arti 5 Present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.04.2010 passed by District Judge, Uttarkashi by which the District Judge, Uttarkashi granted interim order in favour of the plaintiff/respondents and directed the petitioner not to make any construction over the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. By the said judgment District Judge, Uttarkashi also directed the trial court to decide the suit within a period of six moths. Order was passed by the District Judge on 24.04.2010. Now almost four months period has passed.