IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 790 of 2011 Jogendra Singh and two others. … Petitioners. Versus Arjun Singh S/O Ram Kumar and 18 others. … Respondents. Mr. M.S.Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.P.S.Takuli, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. R.C.Arya, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the State-respondent no. 16. Mr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 14. WITH Writ Petition (M/S) No. 789 of 2011 Jogendra Singh and two others. … Petitioners. Versus Arjun Singh S/O Ram Kumar and 18 others. … Respondents. Mr. M.S.Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.P.S.Takuli, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. R.C.Arya, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the State-respondent no. 16. Mr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 14. Date August 01, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common order. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought same relief in prayer clause I) and ii) as under:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25-9-2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (A.C.R.C.), Circuit Court, Uttaranchal, Nainital in Second Appeal No. 93 and 94 of 2004-05. 2 ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the learned A.C.R.C. Circuit Court, Uttaranchal, Nainital, to decide the Appeal No. 93 and 94 of 2004- 05 without unreasonable delay. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 790 of 2011, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the learned A.C.R.C. Circuit Court, Uttarakhand, Nainital to give effect to the order dated 4-4-2006 passed by this Court in WPMS No. 333 of 2006, Jogendra Singh and others Vs. Arjun Singh and others and the order dated 2-5-2007 passed by this Court in modification application No. 5346 of 2006 in WPMS No. 333 of 2006, which are annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 789 of 2011, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the learned A.C.R.C. Circuit Court, Uttarakhand, Nainital to give effect to the order dated 4-4-2006 passed by this Court in WPMS No. 334 of 2006, Jogendra Singh and others Vs. Arjun Singh and others and the order dated 2-5-2007 passed by this Court in modification application No. 5420 of 2006 in WPMS No. 334 of 2006, which are annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Brief stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that earlier the petitioners herein had assailed the judgment and decree dated 20-1-2006 passed by the Chief Revenue Commissioner, by which the appeal had been remanded to the Trial Court and two separate Writ Petition (M/S) No. 333 of 2006 and WPMS No. 334 of 2006 were preferred before this Court. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by separate order on 4-4-2006 thereby direction was given to the appellate Court to decide the appeal within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order. It appears that in those writ petition notices were not issued to the respondent nos. 1 to 14 herein and the order was passed on the basis of the statement made by the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State observing that “instead of remanding the matter to the trial court, the matter is sent back to the Commissioner Kumaon Division, who shall decide 3 the appeal exercising the appellate jurisdiction and will also be able to appreciate the question of fact which has been directed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 61 of 2003 and Writ Petition No. 62 of 2003 by which the writ petition was allowed.” It appears that subsequently, Mofification applications were filed in the two writ petitions. This Court in the order dated 2- 5-2007 observed that the parties have submitted that appeals are pending before the Additional Revenue Commissioner and the same may be decided together and the Chief Revenue Commissioner had been directed to decide the matter by consolidating both the appeal. With this direction, the modification applications were dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that in the earlier order, this Court vide order dated 4-4-2006 directed the Commissioner, Kumaon Division shall decide the appeals on the ground that the first appellate Court can appreciate the question of fact but in the order passed on the modification application vide order dated 2-5- 2007, it was not clarified that instead of remanding the matter to the Commissioner, The Chief Revenue Commissioner shall decide the appeals by consolidating both the appeal. The learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (A.C.R.C.) after hearing both the parties has observed in the impugned order dated 25-9-2010 that on 2-5-2007, when the order was passed on Modification Applications, Z.A. Appeal No. 93/2004-05 and Z.A. Appeal No. 94/2004-05 were not pending for disposal before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner and they had already been remanded to the trial Court for hearing. The learned A.C.R.C., therefore, directed the parties to seek clarification in the matter from the High Court as the order dated 4- 4-2006 and the order dated 2-5-2007 are contradictory to each other. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for both the parties have agreed that in the interest of justice direction be given to the Commissioner Kumaon Division, the first appellate Court to hear the appeals and the decide the 4 matter afresh and that the order dated 20-1-2006 passed by the learned A.C.R.C. thereby directing the trial court to decide the matter afresh be modified. It is significant to mention here that by the order dated 20-1-2006, the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner/second appellate court, while deciding the two appeals had remanded the matter to the trial Court and when the said order was assailed before this Court in WPMS No. 333 of 2006 and WPMS No. 334 of 2006, this Court by order dated 4-4-2006 had directed the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division to decide the appeal. In this view of the matter, the order dated 20-1-2006 stood set aside and the appeals, which were decided by the first appellate Court, stood restored to its original number for hearing before the first appellate Court. Obviously, no appeals were pending before the second appellate court on the date when order dated 2-5-2007 was passed by this Court on modification application. In view of the above, it is directed that both the appeals, referred to above, be decided by the first appellate Court after consolidating them together on merits in accordance with law after hearing all the parties expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With the above direction and observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP