MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the coun sel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel representing the Caveator as well as Gaon Sabha, respondent No. 7.

(2.) PERUSED the record. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1 dated 23. 2. 94 whereunder accepting the reference made by the Additional Com missioner dated 21. 4. 93 the revising authority had set aside the order of the trial court dated 30. 4. 92 granting ex pane, injunction against the defendants as well as the order passed by it dated 16. 11. 92 requiring the restoration of the status quo in respect of the land in dispute as reported by the Commissioner in his report dated 4. 5. 92 and directing for the re-construction of the 'dol' and in case there had been any alteration in the possession in that event restoration of possession, the plaintiffs-petitioners have now approached this court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the order of the Board of Revenue, respon dent No. 1 as well as the referring order passed by the Additional Commissioner indicated herein before.

(3.) IT appears, that along with the plaint the plaintiffs had moved an applica tion under Section 229-D of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act seeking an interim injunction against the defendants restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land in dispute. IT appears that on the aforesaid application seeking interim injunction the trial court on 30-4-92 issued an ex parte injunction to the effect that slants quo on the spot be maintained and in case the plaintiffs were in possession over the land in dispute in that even they be not dispossessed till the date of service of the notice. The plaintiffs had also applied for appointment of a commissioner for ef fecting the service of the injunction order and the notice. On this application the trial court had appointed a Commissioner who was required to serve the injunction order on the defendants and to prepare a sketch map of the land in dispute and note the facts pointed out by the plaintiffs and submit a report. The Commissioner submitted a report dated 4-5-92. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 the transferees filed an objection against the report on 22. 6. 92. On the same date they filed a written statement denying the plaint al legations and asserting that they were continuing to be in exclusive possession of the land in dispute from the date of the execution of the sale-deed prior to which the recorded tenure-holder was in possession of the same. Various other pleas were also raised by the defendants.