JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Sri Haider Husain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.V. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.
With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without inviting counter affidavit.
2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.9.2007, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer refusing to grant an interim injunction and the order dated 5.11.2007, passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision as not maintainable.
3. The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are; that a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was filed by the petitioner. Alongwith the suit an application under Section 229-D of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with Section 151, Order XXXIX Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the petitioner. An interim injunction was granted on 13.9.2007 by the Assistant Collector directing the parties to maintain status-quo till disposal of the suit. The respondents put in appearance in the suit and prayed for vacation of the ex-parte interim injunction. The trial Court by order dated 28.9.2007 set aside the interim injunction order. Against the order dated 28.9.2007, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner under Section 333 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Before the revisional Court an objection was raised by the defendant respondents that revision was not maintainable since it had been filed against an interlocutory order. The revisional Court proceeded to examine the objection and relying on certain decisions of the Board of Revenue and one judgment of this Court, vide the impugned order dated 5.11.2007 dismissed the revision holding that the revision is not maintainable. Against the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the view taken by the revisional Court that revision is not maintainable since the order passed under Section 229-D was interlocutory in nature, is erroneous. He further submits that order passed under Section 229-D is subject to revisional jurisdiction and the revisional Court committed error in rejecting the said revision on the ground of its non-maintainability. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the judgments of the Board of Revenue relied on by the revisional court do not lay down the correct law. The order passed under Section 229-D is revisable under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. He further submits that the judgment in the case of Ram Vyas and Ors. v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad reported in 2002 (93) R.D. 883 is not applicable in the facts of the present case since the question involved in the present writ petition, has not been considered in the said judgment. Sri D.V. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents on the other hand contends that no error was committed by the Assistant Collector in vacating the ex-parte interim order as the petitioner was not entitled for any interim injunction. I have considered the submissions of counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5. The issue raised in the present writ petition is, as to whether the order passed under Section 229-D is revisable under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or not. The revisional Court relied on the judgment in the cases of Shikhari v. State of U.P. reported in 2001 RJ 661, Sageer Ahmad v. Mohammad Quddus and Ors. reported in 2001 RJ 913, Mahfooz v. State of U.P. reported in 2001 RJ 529, Sangam Sahkari Avas Samiti v. Rani Brijmani Devi reported in 2001 RJ 918. All the aforesaid judgments are the judgments of the Board of Revenue. In the said judgments, the Board of Revenue held that the order passed under Section 229-D of UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is interlocutory in nature and is not liable to be interfered with in revision. The above noted judgments do not specifically lay down that order passed under Section 229-D is not revisable. In the case of Ram Vyas (supra), the question as to whether the order passed under Section 229-D is revisable or not, was not considered.
Section 229-D of the UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is to the following effect:
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-
(a) that any property, tree or crops standing on the land in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit; or
(b) that any party to the suit threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the said property, trees or crops in order to defeat the ends of justice, the Court may grant a temporary injunction and where necessary, also appoint a receiver.
6. The revisional jurisdiction of the Court is provided under Section 333 of the UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which is to the following effect:
333. Power to call for cases.- (1) The Board of the Commission or the Additional Commissioner may call for the record of any suit or proceeding other than proceeding under- Sub-section (4-A) of Section 198 decided by any court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding and if such subordinate court appears to have:
(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner, as the case may be, may pass such order in the case as he thinks fit.
(2) If an application under his section has been moved by any person either to the Board or to the Commissioner or to the Additional Commissioner, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them.