IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1960 of 2008 (M/S) With Stay Application No. 7344 of 2008 Badri Prasad, S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal, R/o Village Kaulagarh, Pargana Kendriyadoon, District Dehradun. ……Petitioner. Versus Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand Dehradun and six others. …Respondents. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1 to 4. Sri Arvind Vashisht, leanred counsel for the caveator. Date:- November 06, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1 to 4 and Sri Arvind Vashisht, learned counsel for the caveator. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- i. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.10.2008 passed by respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 7) to the writ petition. ii. Pass any other, writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Revisional Court has committed manifestly error of law in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court, i.e., Assistant Collector-respondent no. 3 and order dated 17th July 2007 passed by the respondent no.2. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration of his rights against the respondent and he claims himself the nephew of the deceased (Surajbhan). The controversy is to be decided by the Trial Court. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner has moved an application under Section 229-D of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and prayed for issuing an interim injunction against the respondent not to alienate the land in dispute and maintain status-quo. Without assigning any reason the respondent no.3 passed one line cryptic order to maintain status-quo and not to create third party interest in the land in dispute. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent no.6 preferred revision before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun. The Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun stayed the operation of the order passed by the respondent no.3, i.e. Assistant Collector Ist Class/Parganadhikari, Dehradun. During the pendency of the revision interim order passed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun, the petitioner preferred revision no.87 of 2006- 07 against the said interim order, which was passed by the learned Commissioner, before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the proceeding of the Trial Court was stayed. The learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun as well as Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun has committed manifest error of law by deciding the revision. It is made clear that there was no order passed in Writ Petition No.1449 of 2005 (Badri Prasad Vs. Commissioner, Garhwal Division and others) for the Revisional Court to decide the revision. The learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand has set aside both the orders passed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 without entering into the merit of the maintainability, i.e., whether the revision before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand or the Commissioner was maintainable or not. The order which was passed by the respondent no.3 being a cryptic order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The respondent no.3 is directed to decide the application of the petitioner after hearing the respondent on merit by speaking order as has been directed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Dated: 6.11.2008 (B.S.Verma, J.) RMY