ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Haider Husain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. V. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the contesting respon dents.
(2.) WITH the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without inviting counter affidavit. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28. 9. 2007, passed by the Sub. Divisional Officer refusing to grant an interim in junction and the order dated 5. 11. 2007, passed by the revisional Court dismiss ing the revision as not maintainable. The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are: that a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was filed by the petitioner. Alongwith the suit an application under Section 229-D of the UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with Section 151, Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the petitioner. An interim injunction was granted on 13. 9. 2007 by the Assistant Collector directing the parties to maintain status-quo till disposal of the suit. The respondents put in appearance in the suit and prayed for vacation of the ex-parte interim injunction. The trial Court by order dated 28. 9. 2007 set aside the interim injunction order. Against the order dated 28. 9. 2007, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner under Section 333 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Before the revisional Court an objection was raised by the defendant respondents that revision was not maintainable since it had been filed against an interlocutory order. The revisional Court proceeded to examine the objection and relying on certain decisions of the Board of Revenue and one judgment of this Court, vide the impugned order dated 5. 11. 2007 dis missed the revision holding that the revision is not maintainable. Against the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the view taken by the revisional Court that revision is not maintainable since the order passed under Section 229-D was interlocutory in nature, is erroneous. He further submits that order passed under Section 229-D is subject to revisional jurisdiction and the revisional Court committed error in rejecting the said revision on the ground of its non- maintainability. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the judgments of the Board of Revenue relied on by the revisional Court do not lay down the'correct law. The order passed under Section 229-D is revisable under Section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. He further submits that the judgment in the case of Ram Vyas and others v. Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad, 2002 (93) R. D. 883 is not applicable in the facts of the present case since the question involved in the present writ petition, has not been considered in the said judgment. Sri D. V. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the con testing respondents on the other hand contends that no error was committed by the Assistant Collector in vacating the ex-parte interim order as the petitioner was not entitled for; any interim injunction. I have considered the submissions of Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.;