- (1.) Heard Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) No counter affidavit has been filed in spite of the time having been granted to the Respondents.
(3.) This writ petition was entertained on 22.01.2007 and the following interim order was passed: Connect with writ petition no. 52795 of 2006. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 3, who prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List for admission after expiry of the aforesaid period. Contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that entire proceedings are being taken up ex-parte by the authorities without permitting him to participate in the same though his name was recorded over the land in dispute on the basis of patta vide order dated 26.6.1984 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahganj, district Jaunpur in case No. 190/253/308 and the same has become final. It has further been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in spite of aforesaid facts, without permitting the Petitioner to participate in the proceedings, the authorities are misinterpreting the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tewari v. Kamla Devi and Ors., 2001 ACJ 1604 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Iqbal Ahmad and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and Ors., 2005 98 RevDec 580. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner is entitled to interim order. Until further orders of this Court, the parties to the writ petition are directed to maintain status quo with regard to nature, possession and entries in the revenue record pertaining to the land in dispute. The Respondents are further restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Petitioner over the land in dispute. A certified copy of this order be given to learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.;