JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. Heard Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order impugned dated 07.03.2018 passed by first respondent on application dated 05.03.2018 filed by private respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 in Case no.C-20170700598 under Section 331(3) Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in brevity “Act 1950”) pending before the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda Zone, District Banda. Further prayer has been made to command the first respondent to decide any application filed by the private respondents in Case no.C-20170700598 under Section 331 (3) Act 1950 only after hearing the petitioner. 3. Record in question reflect that earlier the proceeding under Section 176 U.P. Revenue Code 1901 has been finalized by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karvi, District Chitrakoot vide order dated 15.09.2017. Aggrieved with the said order, the statutory appeal alongwith the stay application has been preferred by the private respondents under Section 331(3) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950. The first application for early disposal of stay application was moved by the private respondents on 13.02.2018 and the second application for the said purpose has been filed by the private respondents on 19.02.2018 and similarly the petitioner had already filed detailed objections on 21.02.2018 and simultaneously the third application has also been moved by the private respondents for early disposal of the stay application on 05.03.2018, on which the interim order dated 07.03.2018 has been passed and the date was fixed for 13.03.2018. It has also been alleged that the proceedings were going on before the Additional Commissioner, Banda Zone, Banda and straightway the present file has been placed before the Commissioner, Chirakoot Dham, Banda Zone, Banda and the order impugned has been passed ex-parte against the petitioner. 4. In this backdrop, it has also been urged that at no point of time any bonafide urgency has been substantiated by the respondents/appellants but ignoring the said fact straightway the Authority concerned has passed ex-parte injunction order and as such, precise submission has been advanced by Shri Kartikey Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner that at least before passing the ex-parte injunction order, the defendant/petitioner could be heard in the matter as such, the order impugned cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 5. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the legal as well as factual aspect of the matter. 6. This is an admitted situation that in the said proceeding detailed objection has been filed by the petitioners and at no point of time bare perusal of order impugned indicates that any such objection has been entertained by the first respondent and as such, the arguments advanced raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is ex-parte, appears to have substance. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned is hit by principles of natural justice and the same cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent to pass an appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties except upon payment of cost, but certainly after providing opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders in the matter. 8. With these, the Writ Petition is allowed.