TALIB KHAN Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Haider Husain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. V. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the contesting respon dents.

(2.) WITH the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without inviting counter affidavit.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the view taken by the revisional Court that revision is not maintainable since the order passed under Section 229-D was interlocutory in nature, is erroneous. He further submits that order passed under Section 229-D is subject to revisional jurisdiction and the revisional Court committed error in rejecting the said revision on the ground of its non- maintainability. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the judgments of the Board of Revenue relied on by the revisional Court do not lay down the'correct law. The order passed under Section 229-D is revisable under Section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. He further submits that the judgment in the case of Ram Vyas and others v. Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad, 2002 (93) R. D. 883 is not applicable in the facts of the present case since the question involved in the present writ petition, has not been considered in the said judgment. Sri D. V. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the con testing respondents on the other hand contends that no error was committed by the Assistant Collector in vacating the ex-parte interim order as the petitioner was not entitled for; any interim injunction.