IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2221 of 2008. Minder, S/O Sharamu, R/O Village Mohipur, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand through Commissioner Garhwal Mandal, Camp Office Dehradun and others. …Respondents. Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri R.C.Arya, learned Brief Holder of the State for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Date December 23, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30-6-2007 and 22-8-2008 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 1 respectively (Annexure Nos. 4 and 6 to the writ petition). By the order dated 30-6- 2007, the application of the petitioner moved under Section 299-D of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act (for short the Act) read with Section 151 C.P.C. in Suit No. 14/2007 was rejected. By the order dated 22-8- 2008, the revision preferred against the said order too was dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Camp Dehradun. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed Revenue Suit No. 14/2007 for declaration of Bhumidhari rights in plot no. 402 M., area 0.410 Hectare of village Mohitpur, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, district Haridwar. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed application for temporary injunction under Section 229-D of the Act. The Assistant Collector dismissed the application on the ground that prima facie the petitioner 2 failed to establish his possession. The revisional court has also confirmed the finding of the trial court. The revisional court has also held in its order that in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the possession was given to the allottees and the revisional court did not find favour with the petitioner and rejected the revision. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. Since the petitioner has failed to prove prima facie case to establish his possession also before the trial court, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. Since the suit is pending, the Assistant Collector concerned is directed to decide the suit expeditiously as far as possible without being influenced by the order of rejection of application under Section 229-D of the Act. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3