S.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) This petition has been instituted canvassing the validity of the impugned orders i.e. order dated 10.1.2005 passed by Sub Divisional Officer and order dated 23.3.2005 passed by Additional Commissioner. The controversy raised in this petition centres round the matter of temporary injunction pending disposal of an application preferred under Section 229 D of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
(2.) The disputed land in the instant petition is Gata no. 320 situated in village Shahgarh Tahsil Bahedi District Bareilly. The petitioner instituted suit under Section 229 B before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Bahedi Bareilly. It is alleged that the Sub Divisional Magistrate initially granted interim injunction on 18.12.2004 but subsequently, reckoning with the objection filed by the respondents in the case, he rescinded the interim injunction by means of impugned order dated 10.1.2005. A revision came to be filed before the Commissioner against the impugned order which met the fate of dismissal vide order dated 23.3.2005 passed by the Commissioner. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has rushed to this Court by means of the present petition.
(3.) At the threshold this Court, as a sequel to the arguments advanced across the bar, passed the following interim order on 3.6.2005. "Till the next date of listing the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 10.1.2005 as well as the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 23.3.05 shall remain stayed. Parties shall maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession of the land in dispute as existing today." The matter was posted for today on 1.8.2005. The learned counsel appearing for the Opp. parties, as a prefatory remark, urged that matter is still lingering before the trial court awaiting final order on application filed under Section 229 D of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not repudiate this fact. He argued that the land in dispute was recorded as Talab submerged in water from 1304 to 1394 Fasli and defendants were not liable to acquire any Bhumidhari right under Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. He further argued that no interim injunction order was passed protecting the interest of any party and further that if no order is passed, it would occasion irreparable injury to the petitioner. It was also argued that interim order dated 3.6.2005 may be further extended to hold good till final decision in the suit.;