JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned standing counsel states that since a pure question of law is involed it is not necessary to file a counter-affidavit at this stage. 3. The petitioner is a tenure holder against whom proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 28.2.2011 declared certain land as surplus in the hands of the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner has preferred an appeal being Ceiling Appeal No. 3 of 2010-11 which has been admitted on 15.4.2011. However, while admitting the appeal the application for an interim relief has been rejected on the ground that there is no justification for grant of any interim order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of clause (c) of Section 14(1) of the 1960 Act, the Collector can take possession of the surplus land only after decision in appeal and upon a notification being issued under Section 14. He submits that the aforesaid situation has not arrived and therefore the appellate authority ought to have granted an interim order so as not to disturb the possession of the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Learned standing counsel submits that as a matter of fact that in view of the legal position as indicated by the petitioner, the appeal itself has to be disposed of before possession can be taken. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as a matter of fact the Collector cannot take possession of the land so long as the appeal is not decided in terms of the provisions referred to hereinabove. 7. Even otherwise in such matters where an appeal is filed and the same has been admitted, the same presumes a prima facie case of the petitioner. The appellate authority should therefore not refuse to exercise discretion for granting interim relief as indicated in the case of Mahmood Rais v. State of U.P., 2009(5) ADJ 529 . Learned Commissioner himself has admitted the appeal and therefore the rejection of the stay application is unjustified. 8. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the land in dispute till the disposal of the appeal at this stage. —————