JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This petition has been instituted canvassing the validity of the impugned orders i.e. order dated 10.1.2005 passed by Sub Divisional Officer and order dated 23.3.2005 passed by Additional Commissioner. The controversy raised in this petition centres round the matter of temporary injunction pending disposal of an application preferred under Section 229 D of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
2. The disputed land in the instant petition is Gata no. 320 situated in village Shahgarh Tahsil Bahedi District Bareilly. The petitioner instituted suit under Section 229 B before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Bahedi Bareilly. It is alleged that the Sub Divisional Magistrate initially granted interim injunction on 18.12.2004 but subsequently, reckoning with the objection filed by the respondents in the case, he rescinded the interim injunction by means of impugned order dated 10.1.2005. A revision came to be filed before the Commissioner against the impugned order which met the fate of dismissal vide order dated 23.3.2005 passed by the Commissioner. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has rushed to this Court by means of the present petition.
3. At the threshold this Court, as a sequel to the arguments advanced across the bar, passed the following interim order on 3.6.2005.
" Till the next date of listing the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 10.1.2005 as well as the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 23.3.05 shall remain stayed. Parties shall maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession of the land in dispute as existing today."
The matter was posted for today on 1.8.2005. The learned counsel appearing for the Opp. parties, as a prefatory remark, urged that matter is still lingering before the trial court awaiting final order on application filed under Section 229 D of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not repudiate this fact. He argued that the land in dispute was recorded as Talab submerged in water from 1304 to 1394 Fasli and defendants were not liable to acquire any Bhumidhari right under Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. He further argued that no interim injunction order was passed protecting the interest of any party and further that if no order is passed, it would occasion irreparable injury to the petitioner. It was also argued that interim order dated 3.6.2005 may be further extended to hold good till final decision in the suit.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties contended that since matter is lingering decision before the trial court, it may be enjoined to pass final order in the application after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
5. Before embarking upon analytical examination of the arguments across the bar, it will be useful to quote Section 229 D of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in order to acquaint myself with the provisions of the Section.
"229.D. Provision for injunction. -(1) If in the course of a suit under the provisions of Sections 229 B and 229 C it is proved by an affidavit or otherwise-
The aforesaid section clearly envisages that in a suit instituted under Section 229 B and 229 C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Court can grant interim injunction on conditions stipulated therein. In this connection, Section 341 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is adverted to and excerpted below being germane to the controversy involved in this petition.
"341. Application of certain Acts, to the proceeding of this Act.- Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870, (VII of 1860), the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, (V of 1908), and the Limitation Act, 1963) including Section 5 thereof shall apply to the proceedings under this Act."
It is now settled principle that provisions of the C.P.C. would be invoked in aid to subserve as supplemental to the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
6. Coming to the application preferred under Section 229 D of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Section 229 D of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, as excerpted supra, envisages provision for grant of injunction on conditions indicated therein. The principles laid down in the matter of grant of injunctions or refusal of injunction apply to the suit and proceeding stemming from U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The principles laid down under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for granting interim injunction are, on all fours, intended for application to Section 229 D of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The grant or refusal of injunction is covered by three well-established principles i.e. (1) whether the party seeking relief of injunction has made out a prima facie case; (2) whether the balance of convenience is in their favour and (3) whether the party concerned would suffer irreparable injury. It brooks no dispute that all the three conditions are sine qua non and the party seeking relief of injunction has to prove all the three conditions from the materials on record before the court/authority concerned. The power of grant or refusal of injunction has to be exercised by the court fairly and equitably. The Court has to consider prima facie case. Prima facie case means the existence of circumstances which have to be considered on merits on the basis of materials brought on record upto the stage of injunction. If the conditions are satisfied, the trial court shall issue injunction to protect the interest of the parties seeking the relief of injunction on the date of suit or on the date of dispute in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the case may be.
7. Reverting to the instant petition, it is ex-facie clear that the impugned order is a cryptic order without assigning reasons for rescinding the interim injunction. The Sub Divisional officer merely cites in the impugned order that the interim injunction was granted ex-parte and that the interest of Opp. Party has been prejudiced as the interim order was granted without hearing them and proceeded to rescind the interim order stating that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
8. It should be borne in mind that the order passed must be speaking order. A cryptic order as impugned in the instant petition, does not convey what weighed with the Court. The necessity of giving reasons flows as a necessary corollary from the rule of law, which constitutes one of the basic principles of the Indian Constitutional set up. The necessity of giving reasons is an important safeguard to ensure observance of the duty to act judicially inasmuch as it ensures clarity, checks the introduction of extraneous or irrelevant considerations and excludes and minimizes arbitrariness in the decision making process.
9. In view of the above, it leaves no manner of doubt that the revenue courts while deciding application under Section 229 D of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are enjoined to abide by and apply the principles as embodied in Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and must take into reckoning the prima facie case and balance of convenience between the parties and resulting irreparable injury to the party besides about the right of the parties whether the same could accrue under any provisions of the Act. To sum up, the revenue courts are also enjoined to pass protective order bearing in mind the interest of parties in the conditions enumerated in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.
10. In the above conspectus, I am fully in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below erroneously refused to grant injunction pending disposal of the application under Section 229D of the Act and therefore, the impugned orders dated 10.1.2005 and 23.3.2995 are liable to be quashed.
11. As a result of foregoing discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. In consequence, the impugned orders dated 10.1.2005 and 23.3.2995 are quashed. The parties are directed to maintain status quo on spot as regards the nature and possession of the land in dispute as mandated by this Court on 3.6.2005 till final disposal of the application filed under Section 229 D of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act attended with further direction that the trial court shall decide the application under Section 229 D of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in accordance with law.