Hori Lal Since Deceased And 12 Others v. Babban And 11 Others

Heard Mr. Dharm Vir Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha.

Brief facts of the case are that suit under Section-229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act was filed by predecessor of petitioners as well as some of the petitioners along-with application for interim injunction under Section 229-D of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. Trial Court vide order dated 06.05.2010 rejected the application for interim injunction. Appeal as well as Second Appeal filed at the instance of the petitioners were dismissed by Additional Commissioner/ Board of Revenue vide orders dated 06.10.2010/18.09.2024. Hence this writ petiton for following relief: "(1)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quashing the orders dated

06.05.2010, 06.10.2010 and 18.09.2024 passed by the respondent Nos.11, 12 and 13 respectively and parties may be directed to maintain status quo. "

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned orders have been passed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that during pendency of the suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act an application for interim injunction was filed by the petitioners, but the same has been rejected in arbitrary manner and order has been maintained in appeal without considering the case of the petitioners as set up in appeal. He submitted that impugned orders should be set aside and direction should be issued for expeditious disposal of pending suit and till the disposal of suit interim protection should be granted in the matter.

Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and learned counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that suit for declaration has been filed in the year 2009-10 which is still pending and application for interim injunction has been rejected under the impugned orders, as such no interference is required against the impugned orders.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There is no dispute about the fact that suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed at the instance of the petitioners is pending before respondent No.10/Sub Collector, First Class /Sub Divisional Officer, Milak, Rampur and application for interim injunction filed under Section 229-D of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act has been rejected. There is also no dispute about the fact that first appeal/ second appeal filed by petitioners have been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner/Board of Revenue.

Perusal of the impugned orders passed by all the three courts demonstrate that application for interim injunction under Section 229-D of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act has been rejected recording finding of fact that the plaintiffs/ petitioners are not entitled for any interim injunction during pendency of suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act as such there is no scope of interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.10, 11, 12.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the matter.

The Writ petiton is dismissed and respondent No.10/ Sub Divisional Officer, Milak, Rampur is directed to decide the aforementioned suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act after framing issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 PS* PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad