Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dt. 20.06.2011 passed by the Deputy Director, Local Self Department Jodhpur in Appeal No. 15/2012, whereby the said appellate authority has dismissed his stay application filed in the aforesaid appeal against grant of permission to raise construction in favour of private respondent No. 2 - Smt. Lata W/o. Ramesh Solanki. Mr. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit , learned counsel for the petitioner urged that earlier the said appellate authority had granted interim stay order in his favour on 24.08.2012 (Annex. 9), which upon a review application filed by the private respondent No. 2, was also affirmed on 17.05.2013. The matter thereafter was fixed on 20.06.2013 for perusal of the progress report of the civil suit instituted by the petitioner along -with an application seeking temporary injunction before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sumerpur. On 20.06.2013, the learned appellate authority found that no temporary injunction has been granted by the trial Court in Civil Original Suit No. 35/12 and, therefore, it felt inclined to reject the stay application filed by the present petition before it.
(2.) THE appeal is admittedly pending consideration even now. Aggrieved by rejection of stay application, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that such interlocutory order passed by the competent authority i.e. Deputy Director, Local Self Department, Jodhpur, does not require any interference by this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Indisputably, the petitioner is claiming his right on the basis of agreement to sell executed in his favour (Annex. 1) dt. 14.12.1980 and thereafter, no conveyance -deed, appears to have been made so far and nor any suit seeking specific performance of the agreement has been filed by the petitioner.
(3.) BE that as it may, the rights of the respective parties about the title of the land is not the subject matter before this Court. The interlocutory order passed by the appellate authority appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case where, the appellate authority has found that the learned trial Court in the civil suit instituted by the petitioner has not granted any temporary injunction. No interference in the said order is called for. Accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is found to be bereft of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage prayed that the appellate authority may be directed to expedite the hearing of the appeal pending before. The petitioner is free to approach the said appellate authority for expediting the hearing of the appeal and may file an application for early hearing of the appeal and if such an application is filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority may consider the application and decide the appeal. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.;