HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?AFR Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47431 of 2011 Petitioner :- Smt. Kamlesh Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Yogesh Kumar Singh,K.R. Sirohi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sheo Dan Singh Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mukhtar Alam for the complainants-respondent nos. 2 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1.
The contention raised by Sri Sirohi on behalf of the petitioner is that the revision, arising out of proceedings under Sub-Section (4) of Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 has been entertained, yet the learned Commissioner has refused to grant any interim relief during the pendency of the revision inspite of the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land and has subsequently transferred the same in favour of one Satish Kumar. Learned counsel submits that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner and as such rejecting the said application was unjustified.
Sri Mukhtar Alam for the complainants submits that the property has been alienated and there is no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the refusal of the interim relief by the Commissioner is justified. So far as the rights of the petitioner are concerned the same are yet to be adjudicated in revision and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner has anything left to say before the revising authority.
The revision is still pending. The scope and parameters for grant of an ex-parte interim relief have been explained by the apex court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das, 1994 SCC (4) 225 (Paragraphs 36 to 38) and further in the decision of this Court in the case of Som Nath Vs. The Additional District Judge-II, Muzaffar Nagar and another, 1994 RD 246 . I am of the opinion that the learned Commissioner was not justified in refusing the grant of an interim relief during the pendnecy of the revision.The petitioner claimed rights of valid allotment, and the same having been cancelled she has been deprived of her existing rights to possess and own the holding. The transfer made by her, does not denude her of her right to contest her original allotment.
Accordingly, the order dated 5.8.2011 is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the revision itself shall be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months, and till the revision is disposed of, parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the property in dispute and the nature thereof shall neither be altered nor alienated till such disposal. Allowed.
Order Date :- 19.8.2011 Sahu