IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINIAL WRIT PETITION NO.540 (MS) OF 2006 Sitapur Eye Hospital Sitapur, Situated at Srinagar, Garhwal, through its Secretary, Dr. M.K. Mehta. …………..Petitioner. Vs. 1. Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Paurigarhwal, 2. District Magistrate, Paurigarhwal, 3. Mahant Ashutoshpuri, S/o Govindpuri, R/o Srinagar, Garhwal. ……………..Respondents. Dated: 10.05.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2. Both the parties have agreed that let the matter be finally disposed of at the admission stage. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.03.2006 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) passed by the Commission Garhwal Division, Pauri in Revenue Revision No. 4 of 2005-06 Mahant Ashutosh Puri Vs. Sitapur Eye Hospital and the order dated 13.03.2006 (Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Paurigarhwal restraining the petitioner from selling the property. Briefly stated, according to the case of the petitioner, the proceedings under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act were finalized on 08.08.2001. The operative portion is quoted below:- ^^vr% xzke iqjkuk Jhuxj IkV~Vh&dVwyL;w¡ rglhy x<+oky ds gky [k0 [kk0 u0 20 esa fodzsrk deys’oj eafnj Jhuxj Xk<+oky ds gd ls 74] 7@16 ¼1-493 gs0½ Hkwfe [kfjt gksdj dzsrk us= fpfdRlky; lhrkiqj VªLV lhrkiqj m0iz0 ds uke vafdr gks ekeys esa 10&00 :0 vFkZn.M dzsrk ls olyw gksdj tek [ktkus gks ckn olwyh vFkZn.M rn~uqlkj Hkw-vfHkys[kksa esa la’kks/ku gksdj i=koyh fu;ekuqlkj vfHkys[kkxkj lafpr gks A** Petitioner has submitted that the District Magistrate has passed the order on 13.03.2006 in the administrative side by which he has stayed the order dated 08.08.2001. A perusal of the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 08.08.2001 shows that this was an order in proceedings U/s 34 of the Land Revenue Act and thereafter, the District Magistrate has passed the order in administrative capacity by staying the same alienation. The order passed by the Tehsildar has been stayed on 13.03.2006 by the District Magistrate. Against the order dated 08.08.2001, a revision was preferred before the Commissioner in 2006 without filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. If the revision has been filed beyond time, the Commissioner shall dispose of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is well settled that jurisdiction to entertain the revision depends upon the filing the revision within the statutory period of limitation. In view of the aforesaid, the Commissioner is directed to decide the revision after hearing both the parities. However, meanwhile the order dated 5th March, 2006 passed by the Commissioner as well as the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 13.03.2006, shall remain stayed. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 10.05.2006 (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Rathour