ANITA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed against an interim order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 5th August 2013 whereby the records of the Court below have been summoned and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo on the spot.

(2.) The dispute appears to have arisen on account of the land having been sold by the tenure holder in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have acquired the land on the strength of a registered sale deed. This sale deed is stated to have been executed after the holding in question was made subject-matter of a declaration under section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The order whereof was passed on 15.9.2012.

(3.) It appears that the respondent No. 4 represented in this Court by Sri Tripathi moved an application that the said permission granted was a cover in order to allow a transaction to take place which otherwise would have been invalid as the vendor was a scheduled caste. This application was entertained and an order came to be passed against the petitioner ex-parte on 10.10.2012. Aggrieved the petitioner alongwith other vendees filed writ petition No. 1937 of 2013 which was disposed of on 19.2.2013 directing the parties to maintain status quo and not to create any third party rights till the matter is decided afresh after hearing the petitioners.