Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 956 (ALL)

Ram Swaroop v. Addl. Commissioner

2016-03-16

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.2.2015 passed under Section 176 of UPZA&LR Act and order dated 4.12.2015 which is an order passed under Section 333 of Act. 3. The dispute raised in this writ petition is that the respondent no.3 has purchased certain plots from the co-tenure holders by a registered sale deed. Since the plots in question were in possession of co-sharers, respondent no.3 filed a suit for partition being Suit No. T-20140341019564 of 2014. It appears that the respondents have filed an application for interim injunction which was granted by the trial court by order dated 19.2.2015 directing the parties to maintain status quo. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing a revision stating therein that no injunction can be granted against the owner, but the revisional court considering the facts and circumstances of the case decided that it would be in the interest of justice that the parties to maintain status quo as large number of plots were involved. 4. Sri O.P.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that due to the order of status quo, the petitioners are not even able to do their farming on the land in question and the respondents being influential persons are interfering with their rights on the land in question. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. At this stage I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the status quo. However, it would be in the fitness of things and appropriate in the interest of justice to direct the Assistant Collector-respondent no.2 to proceed with the said suit and decide the same expeditiously without allowing unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, provided there is no other legal impediment in the same or no interim order is operating against the disposal of the said case. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above order.