LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-158

BALMIKI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

Decided On January 17, 2014
Balmiki Appellant
V/S
BOARD OF REVENUE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.C. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.9.2013 passed by learned Member Board of Revenue by which the petitioner's revision has been dismissed holding it to be not maintainable being against an interlocutory order.

(2.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned in the revision was not interlocutory order as by the impugned order, in the revision, stay vacation application of the petitioner was rejected. In his submissions, any order passed on the stay vacation application amounts to final order and the revision would be maintainable. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon few judgments of this Court e.g. Brahampal and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 2014 122 RevDec 18, and Talib Khan v. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Moradabad Division Moradabad and others, 2008 104 RevDec 458. In his submissions, the learned Member Board of Revenue has erred in dismissing the revision as not maintainable.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears the petitioner is a valid lease holder of the land in dispute, which was granted in the year 1986. Seeking cancellation of the aforesaid lease, a proceeding under sub-section 4 of section 198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was initiated by the respondents No. 3 and 4. The said proceeding was dismissed in default on three occasions. The respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed an application before the Collector Ballia seeking injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating the land as pending proceeding of cancellation of lease, the lease holder was going to transfer the lease land. On this application, an interim order was passed restraining the petitioner from transferring the land in dispute.