SUKHDEI Vs. GHASITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order dated 3-10-1997, passed in revision No. 2 of 1997-98/Bijnor, arising out of an order dated 2-9-1997, passed by the learned Collector, Bijnor in the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of Jagwati etc. were initiated on the application, dated 18-3-1996, moved by Ghasita. The same day, Ghasita moved an application for granting stay and stated that the opposite parties were trying to illegally occupy the land in dispute on the basis of some lar/i allotment, made in their favour and also illegally to cut the trees, standing, thereon. The learned Additional Collector, Bijnor vide his order, dated 18-3-1996, passed an order for maintaining the sunns-quo in respect of the land, in dispute. The opposite party then moved an application, dated 24-5-1996 for vacation of this order, elated 18-3-1996. maintaining the status quo, stating inter-alia that the applicant, Ghasita is not an aggrieved per­son, the learned Collector, Bijnor, after hearing both the parties, came to the con­clusion that pnma facie the allotments, made in favour of the opposite parlies arc legal and there was no justification in pass­ing the order, dated 18-3-1996, maintain­ing the status quo, and vacated the same vide his order, dated 2-9-1997, fixing 16-9-1997 for adducing evidence in the case. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred along with an application for slay. The learned Additional Commis­sioner stayed the operation of the order dated 2-9-1997, passed by the learned Col­lector, Bijnor, vide his order dated 3-10-1997, It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred before the Board by the opposite parties.

(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the relevant records, on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that on the application of the opposite party (or vacating the order for maintaining status quo, passed by the learned Additional Col­lector, Bijnor, the learned Collector, Bij­nor, after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that prima facie, the case appears to be in favour of the opposite party and there was no justification in passing the order for maintaining the status quo. The learned Additional Com­missioner, after exercising his judicial dis­cretion, stayed the operation of the im­pugned order, passed by the learned Col­lector, Bijnor till further orders. As a mat­ter of fact, in view of claims and counter­claims, put forward by the panic:- con­cerned before the learned trial C n, he has rightly passed the impugned order, it was his judicial discretion which he exer­cised in favour of passing the impugned interim order. No manifest error of law, fact or jurisdiction has been committed by him in rendering the impugned order dated 3-10-1997. Moreover, the present revision petition has been preferred against an interlocutory order against which no revision lies. The impugned order, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner does not amount to a case or proceeding, decided and, therefore, this revision petition is not maintainable, in law, besides having no force, on merits. No harm or prejudice is caused to any party, directly or indirectly, by the impugned order. As a matter of fact, the effect of the impugned order results in the order for maintaining the status quo during the pen­dency of the revision petition, before the learned Court, below and as such, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the same.