IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 489 of 2009. Sadeeq Khan S/O Sri Saeed Khan, R/O Shamim Cottage, Thana Gate, Bhowali, District Nainital. ... Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Local Self Government Uttarakhand Dehradun and three others. ... Respondents. Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents. Date April 09, 2009. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The only prayer made in this writ petition is that a direction be issued to the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital to decide the Revenue Revision no. 4/07-08, Sandeep Kumar Vs. Nagar Palika and others, pending in his court expeditiously within a time frame. According to the petitioner, he purchased some land situated at Khalalqueera Patti Bhowali, Tehsil and district Nainital from one Virendra Singh son of Gosain Singh on 26-12-2001 and a revenue suit no. 22/11 of 1996-97 Sandeep Kumar Vs. Trilok Singh and others under Section 229B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was pending in the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class Nainital in which the petitioner was arrayed as defendant no. 35. The petitioner was wiling to construct commercial/residential accommodation over the purchased land, therefore, he made an application for sanction of map to respondent no. 3 on 5-3-2003. It appears that the map was not sanctioned by the Nagar Palika and the petitioner was informed by letter dated 3-3-2002 (copy Annexure-2) that till the decision of the said suit, the map cannot be sanctioned. The suit was decided finally on 9-12-2002 and the petitioner made an application on 22-3-2003 along with the proposed map vide Annexure- 3. A perusal of record shows that aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9-12-2002 passed by the Assistant Collector, the plaintiff Sandeep Kumar filed Revenue Revision No. 47/4/2006-07 was filed before the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, which was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 25-7- 2007. It appears that subsequently the revision was restored and renumbered as Revenue Revision No. 4/2007-08. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. W.P.M.S. No. 1475 of 2007, which was disposed of by order dated 6-9-2007 and the petitioner was given liberty to make a representation afresh before the authority concerned. The grievance of the petitioner is that as many as 33 dates have already been fixed in the Revenue Revision No. 4 of 2007-08 but the same could not be decided as yet. Prolonged pendency of the revision is causing prejudice to the petitioner. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the writ petition be disposed of today itself and a direction for time bound disposal of the revenue revision to the Commissioner Kumaun Division would serve the ends of justice in the matter. Prayer is innocuous. Accordingly, the Commissioner Kumaun Division Nainital is directed to decide the Revenue Revision No. 4/2007-08 on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Costs easy. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP