SUDHIR KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. SHYAM BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V.N. Singh along with Sri S. K. Singh for the petitioners and Ms. Suman Jaiswal for the contesting respondent.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Sub -Divisional Officer dated 27.8.2004, Collector dated 21.7.2008 and Board of Revenue dated 20.1.2014.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings under Section 167 of the Act is in the nature of resuming the properties covered under the void transaction, as such, ultimately if it is found that the transaction was void, property will be resumed. So long as it is not held that the transaction was void, no interim order can be granted and the tenure holder cannot be restrained from exercising his right as conferred under the Act. In the absence of there being any specific provision for grant of injunction, the Sub -Divisional Officer was not competent to grant any injunction. He submits that Section 229 D of the Act specifically conferred the jurisdiction for passing the interim injunction in the suits, under Section 229 B and 229 C. Since the legislature conferred as limited the power for grant of interim injunction in suit under Section 229 B and 229 C, as such, the injunction cannot be granted in exercise of inherent powers also. The order is totally without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.