IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2103 OF 2010 B.P. Singh & another. …….…Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. …….Respondents. Present: Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Arya, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 7.10.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital in Ceiling Appeal No. 1 (2009-10) / 13 (2009-10). 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners’ land has been declared surplus by order-dated 3.8.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Ceiling Case No. 51/55 year 1974-75 State Vs. Ram Avadh Singh and others. In this case, proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were initiated as far back in the year, 1975. For one reason or the other, the matter was delayed, and ultimately on 3rd August, 2010, the land of the petitioners has been declared as surplus. According to the petitioners, they have preferred an appeal against the said order, which is pending before the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. All the same, their interim application has been rejected by the Court vide order dated 7.10.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under the circumstances, an interim order was liable to be given to him, otherwise it will frustrate the very purpose of filing the appeal, which is pending before the court of Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. 5. Prima facie, there is force in the contention of the petitioner. All the same, the matter itself is extremely old. It pertains to the year 2 1975. However, grant of interim order depends upon particular facts of the case. In the clear opinion of this Court, there is no justification for granting an absolute stay order to the petitioners. All the same, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital shall expeditiously dispose of the appeal, without granting unnecessary adjournments, preferably within a period of six months from today. In order to protect the interest of the petitioners, who are agriculturist, it is directed that in case there are any crops standing on the land, the petitioners shall be allowed to reap its benefits. Since, in view of Section 14 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Act, 1960, “physical possession”, can only be taken by the State after the appeal itself has been decided. Therefore, it is clarified that the possession, which will now be taken by the State, shall only be of notional in nature. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally. 7. No order as to costs. 8. Registrar General of the High Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this order, free of cost, to the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, for compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.12.2010 Rathour