Heard Sri Anuj Dayal learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 4 and Sri Azad Khan learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.5.
Under challenge is the order dated 19.9.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner (Prashashan), Faizabad whereby the application for interim injunction in the revisional proceedings has been rejected while the proceedings are still on going.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier the property in dispute bearing gata No. 25 situate in village Hiabatpur, Pargana Haveli, Awadh, Tehsil Sadar District Faizabad (now Ayodhya) was recorded as 'Parikrama Marg' and later on vide order dated 26th February, 1990, a portion of it was deleted as 'Parikrama Marg' whereafter a lease was executed on 15.5.1991 in favour of predecessors in title of the petitioners namely Rafiuddin and Rem Kewal. In view of the said order, the names were mutated in revenue records as Bhumidhar. It has been submitted that subsequently in 2001, the lessees were recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights in revenue records. After such recording, the property in question was transferred to petitioners vide registered sale deed executed in the year 2002 and in pursuance of which petitioners were also recorded in the revenue records over the property in question. It has been submitted that subsequently after 27 years, the State authorities filed an application under section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006 for cancellation of lease executed in the year 1991 in favour of Ram Kewal and Rafuddin. The said proceedings were decided ex parte vide order dated 24th July, 2019 declaring the lease deed dated 15th May, 1991 as having been cancelled.
Upon coming to know of the ex parte order, petitioners filed revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006 along with an application for interim injunction which has been rejected by means of impugned order.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the interim injunction application has been rejected on the ground that petitioners/revisionist have not been to make out a prima facie case nor have been able to indicate any irreparable damage which would occasion due to non grant of interim injunction. He submits that the said reasoning is against the report filed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 3rd January, 2019 filed in the proceedings under section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006 wherein it has been specifically admitted that out of the total land area of gata No. 25, only an area of 0.022 Hectares is recorded under 'Parikrama Marg'.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioners have constructed their residential dwelling over the property in question and therefore it would necessarily follow that they would suffer irreparable injury in case interim injunction is not granted. He further submits that once the petitioners are duly recorded in revenue records over property in question, prima facie case is apparently made out requiring grant of injunction during pendency of revisional proceedings.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have disputed the assertions made by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that the land recorded as 'Parikrama Marg' could not have been leased out or the nature changed in view of specific provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and therefore the order canceling the lease does not require any interference.
Having considered the arrangements raised by learned counsel for parties and material on record, it is evident that the revisional court has not taken into account the submissions of petitioners/revisionist that till date they are recorded in revenue records over the property in question over which they have constructed their residential dwelling. The report dated 3rd January, 2019 filed by sub Divisional Magistrate indicating that only a portion of the plot in question is recorded as 'Parikrama Marg' has also not been considered by the revisional court. In view of aforesaid, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without considering the material on record for the purposes of granting interim injuction.
In view of the aforesaid, since the grant or refusal of interim injunction is required to be passed by the competent authority itself on the basis of material on record, no useful purpsoe would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and as such the matter is remitted to the Additional Commissioner (Prashashan) Faizabad (now Ayodhya) to re-consider the interim injunction application filed by the petitioners/revisionsit after considering the material on record and the submissions made by the petitioners/revisionist.
The petitioners are granted liberty to file a copy of this order before the said authority within a period of two days from today wherefter the application for grant of interim injunction shall be considered within a period of 15 days thereafter. Till decision on application for interim injunction of the petitioners/revisionist, it is provided that they shall not be dispossessed from the property under their possession in gata No. 25 situate in village Hiabatpur, Pargana Haveli, Awadh, Tehsil Sadar District Faizabad (now Ayodhya).
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
The benefit of this order would be available to petitioners/revisionist only in case a copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority within the next three days.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 prabhat