2025:UHC:210 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS 1816/2015 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Manvendra Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner/review applicant. Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel, for the State. Mr. Ankit Bisht, Advocate, i/b Mr. Himanshu Pal, Advocate for the respondent no. 3. (2) Writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, vide order dated 7.1.2025, in view of the statement made on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition has become infructuous. (3) Today, the matter is listed on review application (MCC/10410/2025). Since there is delay of 104 days in filing the review application, an application (IA/10411/2025) seeking condonation of delay has also been filed. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application, the same is allowed. Delay is condoned. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief as claimed in the writ petition survived, but a wrong statement was given by learned Counsel that writ petition has become infructuous. (5) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, review application is allowed; order dated 7.1.2025 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. 2025:UHC:210 (6) Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 25.5.2015, passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No. 142 of 2014-15. By the said judgment, order of temporary injunction, passed by Assistant Collector under Section 229-D of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, was set aside. (7) Perusal of order passed by Assistant Collector on 4.12.2014 reveals that it was a consent order. Learned Board of Revenue, however, has observed that since defendant is recorded as tenure holder, therefore, order of temporary injunction cannot be passed against the true owner. (8) Since by the impugned judgment, Board of Revenue has remanded the matter to Assistant Collector, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Writ petition is, however, disposed of with a request to Assistant Collector concerned to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 229-D of the aforesaid Act and pass order afresh, as per law, within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (9) For a period of six weeks or till decision on petitioner’s aforesaid application, whichever is earlier, parties shall maintain status quo qua the land in question. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.7.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957B E53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.07.18 17:06:28 +05'30' 2025:UHC:210