- (1.) RAN Vijai Singh, J. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 27. 6. 2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulajidshahar by which the interim order dated 9. 4. 2008 staying the operation of the order passed by the Set tlement Officer of Consolidation has been vacated.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that against the order dated 27. 6. 2007 passed in appeal by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Revision No. 521 was filed by in which an interim order was passed on 9. 4. 2008 staying the implementation of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation. It appears on an information re ceived by the subordinate staff, the Deputy Director of Consolidation suo moto vacated the order dated 9. 4. 2008. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Yasharth has submitted before the Court that no application for vacating the interim order was filed by the respondents. Yet the interim order was vacated.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and heard standing Counsel. However considering the nature of the or der which this Court is intending to pass the notices are not issued to the private re spondents and the writ petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Counsel for the representing. It is well settled that once an in terim order is passed, staying the operation of the Court bellow, then order can only be vacated on the instance of the affected party. The Court suo motu cannot vacate the interim order holding that it is in the interest of the State as interest of the State was not involved directly. The dispute was between the private parties.;