Kailash Nath Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.R. Khan at some length and perused the averments contained in the writ petition. By order dated 3 -12 -1985 this writ petition was directed to be listed in the first week of January, 1986 and it was further observed that it is expected that by that time the restoration application filed by the petitioner shall be disposed of by the learned Additional Commissioner who is seized with the matter. Learned counsel pointed out that the said application of restoration has not yet been disposed of and the learned Additional Commissioner has fixed 31 -3 -1986 for orders on the restoration application. It is not understandable as to why learned Additional Commissioner has not disposed of the restoration application in spite of the aforesaid order and it is being kept on pending. Such applications deserve to be disposed of at the earliest so that the parties should not suffer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that while directing notices to be issued to the opposite parties of the restoration application, the learned Additional Commissioner erred in not considering prayer for passing an order of stay. He has placed before me a certified copy of the order dated 11 -8 -1982 by which the status quo was directed to be maintained and the District Government Counsel was directed to file objection by 1 -9 -1982. Learned counsel urged that since the objection under Section 27(4) of the Ceiling Act was dismissed in default, the aforesaid interim relief order regarding maintenance of status quo also automatically lapsed. He pointed out that along with the application for restoration a prayer was also made for passing by way of interim relief the aforesaid stay order. Learned counsel urged that while issuing notice on the restoration application, the learned Additional Commissioner could pass said order of stay but he refused to grant stay order in terms as was issued earlier by observing that unless case is restored, interim stay order cannot be passed.
(2.) THE sole question for consideration in the writ petition is whether while issuing notice to the opposite parties regarding restoration application, the court could or could not grant an interim order of stay in the terms as was earlier granted. To me there appears no bar in granting the ad interim order of stay in the terms as was granted earlier, while issuing notices to the opposite parties of the restoration application. The restoration application always deserves to be disposed of at the earliest. I am further of the opinion that appropriate order could be passed by the Additional Commissioner on the stay application while issuing notices to the opposite parties of the restoration application on the terms and conditions on which the order of stay was granted earlier in the same. Learned Additional Commissioner has, thus, erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction in not passing an appropriate order on the application for stay while issuing notice of the restoration application to the opposite parties. The refusal to consider prayer for interim order of stay in exercise of jurisdiction has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. If the learned Additional Commissioner would have taken care to pass the order on the stay application the petitioner would not have been made to incur expenses in approaching this court through this writ petition. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as stated above, I find it appropriate to direct the learned Additional Commissioner to decide the restoration application on the next date of hearing i.e. 21 -3 -1986, but in case notice is not served on the opposite party, he will proceed to expeditiously dispose if or by getting notice served on the opposite party through substituted means if they are avoiding service. The learned Additional Commissioner will also pass appropriate order on the stay application which the petitioner is said to have filed along with the restoration application, meanwhile parties are directed to maintain status quo as regards possession over the land in dispute subject to such orders which may be passed by the learned Additional Commissioner on the stay application and the restoration application. Learned Additional Commissioner will now proceed to decide the restoration application and the prayer for the interim order of stay in the light of the observations made above. The writ petition, thus, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.;