KAMLESH Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mukhtar Alam for the complainants-respondent nos. 2 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1.

(2.) The contention raised by Sri Sirohi on behalf of the petitioner is that the revision, arising out of proceedings under Sub-Section (4) of Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 has been entertained, yet the learned Commissioner has refused to grant any interim relief during the pendency of the revision inspite of the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land and has subsequently transferred the same in favour of one Satish Kumar. Learned counsel submits that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner and as such rejecting the said application was unjustified.

(3.) Sri Mukhtar Alam for the complainants submits that the property has been alienated and there is no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the refusal of the interim relief by the Commissioner is justified. So far as the rights of the petitioner are concerned the same are yet to be adjudicated in revision and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner has anything left to say before the revising authority.