IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 1449 of 2007 Umesh Chandra Gupta (since died) Through his Legal Heirs. …..Petitioners. Versus National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and others. ……….Respondents. Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 2 to 6. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 7 to 14. 17th March, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Respondent no. 7 to 14 were admittedly recorded tenure-holders of land, which is situated at Village Maholia Bhur, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Subsequently, the petitioners in the present writ petition claim that they had certain rights over the said property. However, respondent no. 7 to 14 had filed a complaint before the respondent no. 1/ National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) complaining that the land has been taken away by deceit and fraud by the petitioners and the petitioners’ ancestors and the property in dispute should be returned to them. 2. The commission, after hearing the complaint, came to the conclusion that the land in dispute has been taken away from the respondent no. 7 to 14 by means other than law and therefore, the Commission, under purported exercise of its power under Article 338 of the Constitution of India, made a recommendation to the State of Uttarakhand that necessary action should be taken against the petitioners. Consequently, the 2 Secretary (Revenue) proceeded against the petitioners in order to evict them from the land in dispute. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed present writ petition before this Court. 4. At the time of arguments, it has also been brought to the notice of this Court that before filing the complaint to the Commission, respondent no. 7 to 14 had already filed a suit (bearing No. 22/45 of 2006-07) under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for declaration as well as for injunction against the petitioners, which is pending before the Assistant Collector, Khatima. This being the admitted fact that the suit of declaration and injunction regarding the same property is pending before the competent court, this Court deems it fit and proper that till a decision is taken by the competent Court, the State Government shall refrain to evict the petitioners from the land in dispute. However, it is made clear that the petitioners have already impleaded State Government as a party. The State Counsel shall present the point of view of the State as well as of the Commission before the Court below. 5. It is made clear that till the matter is disposed of by the competent court, status quo shall be maintained on the property in dispute and no third party interest shall be created over the property in dispute. It is also made clear that the Assistant Collector, Khatima shall dispose of the matter, which is pending before him, as expeditiously as possible. It is further clarified that this writ petition is being disposed of only on the consideration that a suit (bearing No. 22/45 of 2006-07) 3 is pending before the Assistant Collector, Khatima. No comments are being made on merits of order dated 2-1- 2007 passed by the respondent no. 1. 6. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 17.3.2009 Rathour