B.Kumar, R.P.Nigam, JJ. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned State Counsel.
(2.) We have perused the impugned order dated 26-6-1997, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. By the said order the District Magistrate provides that all the interim orders granted prior to 26-6-1997 in the proceedings pending before the revenue courts and the revenue authorities, they all are cancelled except where it is found that on the spot same house is being constructed,
(3.) The matter in short, hence, we do not think it necessary to keep this matter unnecessarily pending before this Court for long. The question that involves is of the competence of the District Magistrate in passing such orders pertaining to all the proceedings pending before the revenue courts or before the revenue authorities. Legal position does not seem to be in doubt in any manner. We have heard learned State Counsel on this point. It is surprising that a senior officer should be passing such order by which he cancelled all the interim orders granted in the proceedings pending before the revenue courts or before the revenue authorities. Such officers, are expected to know that only way to get the order vacated is to move an application before the appropriate authority before whom proceedings are pending for vacating the interim order or for termination of the proceedings against the applicants. A novel way adopted by the opposite party No. 2 is legally unsustainable and can well be termed as arbitrary and unreasonable.;