HUNMAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Mehrotra, for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for respondents -1 to 3 and Sri S.C. Kashish for respondent -4. The counsel for the respondents are granted one month time for filing Counter Affidavit, the petitioners will have three weeks times thereafter for filing Rejoinder Affidavit. List thereafter.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders Deputy Collector (respondent -3) dated 23.01.2013, rejecting the application for interim injunction, filed by the petitioners in the suit under Section 229B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Additional Commissioner dated 26.04.2014, dismissing the revision of the petitioners against the aforesaid order.

(3.) THE petitioners filed an application dated 07.01.2013 under Section 229D of the Act, for interim injunction, directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to their possession over the land in dispute. It has been stated by the petitioners that they were in possession over the land in dispute. The contesting defendant was trying to raise constructions over the land in dispute and started to collect building materials. Earlier, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 4039 (MB) of 2001, in the High Court, in which interim order dated 16.08.2001 was granted to the petitioners but the writ petition was dismissed in default and the petitioners have filed an application for recall of the order of dismissal of the writ petition in default. The petitioners were in cultivatory possession over the land in dispute since before the date of vesting and the suit filed by the defendant for ejectment of the petitioners was dismissed on 10.10.1995. The petitioners have good prima facie case in their favour. Balance of convenience lies in their favour. In case interim order is not granted, they would suffer grave and irreparable loss. Respondent -4 filed an objection in the application for interim injunction and stated that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of respondent -4 in the revenue record and the petitioners had not filed any replication. The writ petition filed by the petitioners has already been dismissed on 23.11.2011 and recall application dated 27.07.2012 filed by them was still pending. The petitioner have not filed any extract of khasra to show their possession over the land in dispute. Entry of the names of the petitioners in column -9 of the khatauni is not continuing. The application for interim injunction was heard by Deputy Collector (respondent -3) who dated 23.01.2013, held that in khatauni 1415 F -1420 F, land in dispute was recorded in the name of defendant -4 as such no interim injunction could be granted in favour of the petitioners. On these findings the application for interim injunction was rejected. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 797) from the aforesaid order. Additional Commissioner, by order dated 26.04.2014, upheld findings of the Deputy Collector and held that the petitioner have lost their case in the High Court. On these findings, the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed.