MOHIT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The contention raised is that in the proceeding of cancellation initiated by the petitioner under Section 198(4) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, an interim order had been passed, which was confirmed but later on came to be vacated. Learned counsel submits that the order of status quo ought to have been maintained as the proceedings are still pending and have not been finalized.

(3.) Sri Singh submits that the petitioner has a two fold claim. Firstly, that the lease granted to the respondent is fake and secondly the petitioner is entitled to retain possession over the land as he has perfected his possession in terms of Section 123(1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.