NAR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S. 5. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) By means of this wrtt petition, the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing of the impugned orders dated 25.2.1997 and 19.6.1995 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively (Annexures-4 and 2 to the writ petition). The revision which was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was against the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation exercising powers of the appellate authority. The appellant court in the appeal filed under Section 11 of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act granted Interim order, which was challenged by the petitioner in revision under Section 48 of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there is no doubt that the order passed by the appellate authority s interlocutory order but nevertheless the order passed by the appellate authority is not under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act and there is no specific provision in the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act for grant of stay order nor the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable, therefore, the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to pass the stay order. In support of his argument, Sri Tripatht placed before the Court a decision reported in 1993 RD 30. in which the Court has held that slay order can be granted and he argued that this decision is applicable only in those cases where there are special facts and circumstances but no special facts and circumstances exist in the present case. His further submission is that if the authority who has no jurisdiction to pass the stay order has passed the order it shall be deemed that the said order has been passed mechanically, and not by applying mind, therefore, the order liable to be quashed.