JUDGMENT : DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, VIRENDRA KUMAR-II, JJ. 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for No. 1 and 2, Mr. Indrajeet Shukla, learned Counsel for private respondents. 2. The present special appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 21.11.2013 passed in writ petition No. 7188 (M/S) of 2013 : Shiv Kumar and others Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda & others, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following directions : "As admittedly contesting respondents are now in possession, it is directed that until decision of the suit , petitioners shall not interfere in their possession. It is further directed that contesting respondents shall deposit Rs.20,000/- per year before the Deputy Collector during the pendency of the suit by the end of each year starting from 2013. If the last days of the year is/are holidays then the deposit must be made before that dates. The amount shall be deposited in some good interest bearing amount for one year renewable after every year for the same period along with accrued interest and new deposit. Order regarding disbursement of the amount shall be passed at the time of the final decision of the suit. However, both the parties are restrained from alienating the property in dispute till the disposal of the suit. However, before parting it is necessary to note a disturbing feature of the case. In para-12 of the writ petition, it has been mentioned that interim order was cancelled/refused to be extended by the trial court on the recommendation/endorsement of an ex-member of parliament. In that regard, reference has been made to Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It was highly improper for the Ex-Member of Parliament, Sri Kirti Vardhan Singh to make endorsement of favourable recommendation on the application of the petitioner. Greater fault was committed by the Deputy Collector to take that application on record of the case, which was pending before him. It was clearly an attempt to influence judicial proceedings on the part of the Ex-Member of Parliament. The Deputy Collector, who passed the order abused his position and power by passing a judicial order on the recommendation of an Ex-Member of Parliament. Court is of the considered opinion that Executive Officers like S.D.Os. are not qualified to hear judicial matters under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Deputy Collector, who passed the order abused his position and power by passing a judicial order on the recommendation of an Ex-Member of Parliament. Court is of the considered opinion that Executive Officers like S.D.Os. are not qualified to hear judicial matters under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It is directed that in future Sri J.P. Singh, who was S.D.O./Deputy D.M. Sadar, Gonda on 23.08.2013 shall not hear any matter under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and an adverse entry must be awarded to him to the effect that he passed the order in the case in question on extraneous consideration. On the basis of the above direction, State Government may initiate such further proceedings against the Deputy Collector concerned as it considers necessary." 3. It appears that dispute relates to agricultural land comprised in Plot No.802, area 0.69 hectare and plot No.132/2, area 0.43 hectare. Initially the said land was recorded in the revenue record in the name of Ganga. After his death dispute of succession arose. Appellants claim that firstly they inherited the property and secondly Ganga had also executed an unregistered Will in their favour on 07.07.1994. Initially the dispute was litigated in mutation proceedings. Ultimately, Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda decided the mutation matter in favour of the contesting respondents No.4 to 7 on 25.01.2008. Revision filed against the same before Board of Revenue, Lucknow was dismissed on 13.10.2011. Review petition was also dismissed. Thereafter, petitioners filed Writ Petition No.144 (M/S) of 2012 in this court. An interim order was passed in the writ petition on 21.02.2012, however during pendency of the writ petition, appellants also filed regular suit based on title under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on 15.03.2012. Thereafter, writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 03.09.2012 in view of filing of the suit. In the suit, appellants filed application for temporary injunction under Section 229-D of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The trial court/S.D.O./Deputy Collector, Tehsil Sadar District Gonda passed status quo order on 11.05.2012 in the suit (Suit No.9/88). However, the status quo order was not extended and a specific order rejecting temporary injunction application was passed on 23.08.2013 by the trial court. 4. Against the order dated 23.08.2013, appellants filed Revision No.832. Revision was dismissed on 23.09.2013 by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda holding that the revision was not maintainable. However, the status quo order was not extended and a specific order rejecting temporary injunction application was passed on 23.08.2013 by the trial court. 4. Against the order dated 23.08.2013, appellants filed Revision No.832. Revision was dismissed on 23.09.2013 by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda holding that the revision was not maintainable. Not being satisfied with the order dated 23.9.2013, the appellants filed writ petition No. 204 of 2014. The learned Single Judge disposed off the writ petition with the directions, as referred hereinabove, vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2013, which is impugned in the present appeal. 5. The Deputy Collector through order dated 23.08.2013 rejected the temporary injunction application on the ground that Writ Petition No.144 (MS) of 2012 (supra) was pending in the High Court. The order passed by the trial court is against the record as Writ Petition had already been dismissed as infructuous. Order passed by the revisional court is also erroneous in law as order finally deciding the temporary injunction application is not an interlocutory order. Against such an order, appeal/revision is maintainable. It may be noted that the appellant cannot derive any benefit by the dismissal of Special Appeal (D) No. 84 of 2014 decided on 18.2.2014 as the said Special Appeal was preferred by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) and the Sub Divisional Officer, Gonda as they were aggrieved by the observations made against them by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 21.11.2013. 6. It is not in dispute that the suit in respect of the property in question is pending and as such the prayer of the appellant that possession of the appellants be restored during pendency of the suit cannot be accepted. Appellants have failed to point out any error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has passed a detail order and with a view to safeguard the interest has directed the contesting respondents to deposit Rs. 20,000/- per year and has also restrained the parties to the suit from alienating the suit property. 7. In these circumstances, the Special Appeal is dismissed. However, we direct that the Court where the suit under Section 229-B of the UP ZA & LR Act is pending to make an earnest endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously i.e. by 30th June, 2018.