1..... MCC NO. 2653 OF 2007 28.09.2011 Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. A.G. for the petitioners. Shri Manish Tiwari, Counsel for the respondent. This application is filed seeking review of order dated 2.5.2006 passed in W.P. No.2020 of 2006 by which a writ petition preferred by the respondent was finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to decided the matter within three months. For ready reference the Court order dated 2.5.2006 reads thus :- “Shri Manish Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri G.P. Singh, Dy.G.A. For the respondents. Petitioner has prayed that the respondent No.2 be directed to decide the pending case 594/B/121/2000/2001. A return has been filed in which following averments have been made. “3. That in the instant case after the application was received from the petitioner the case as referred above was registered, enquiry was initiated, it was found that the land measuring 21700 sq.ft.was acquired from the petitioner out of which at present 6700 sq.ft. land is lying vacant and remaining is under encroachments. As soon as the encroachment from the land is removed the same will be handed over to the petitioner. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the above said revenue case was fixed for orders in the month of Nov.2005 but in view of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Nazul Maintenance Survey the matter as been kept pending. 5. The answering respondents submit that if three months time is granted to them the land shall be returned to the petitioner after removal of the encroachments.” In view of the return filed by the respondents, 3 moths time is granted, as prayed, to do the needful. Writ petition stands disposed of.” 2..... MCC NO. 2653 OF 2007 28.09.2011 From the perusal of the order which is referred herein, it is apparent that a direction was issued to the petitioners to decide the matter within 3 months as was prayed in the return. The aforesaid order is innocuous in nature and was passed just to decide the matter which was pending before the petitioners herein since 2000. In these circumstances, merely D.K. Sharma, Tahsildar was appointed as the O.I.C. in the matter will not affect the merit of this case. This Court specifically directed that pending matter should be decided by the concerned officials within a period of 3 months. On being raised a quarry, learned Dy.A.G. admitted this fact that the matter is still pending before the Sub Divisional Officer. In view of the aforesaid, we find no reason to review order dated 2.5.2006. This review petition is dismissed with cost which we quantify to Rs.5000/-, payable by the petitioners to the respondent. While dismissing this review petition, we further direct the petitioner No.2 to decide the case No.594/B-121/2000-2001 which was subject matter of W.P.No. 2020 of 2006, expeditiously as far as possible within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE vj 3..... MCC NO. 2653 OF 2007 28.09.2011