This petition has been filed challenging an order dated 24.05.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda by which the Revision of the petitioners has been admitted against an order of the Collector by which the proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Section 65/66 of the U.P. Revenue Code Manual, 2006 were rejected but the interim relief prayed for which was allegedly for restraining the private opposite parties from raising constructions has been rejected.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the Revision was admitted then it was incumbent upon the District Collector to have granted interim relief. The Court is not impressed by this argument. There cannot be any mechanical grant of interim relief. The grant of interim relief is based on consideration of three parameters i.e. prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. All the three factors have to be satisfied for grant of interim relief. No doubt the order impugned, so far as it relates to the interim relief claimed by the petitioners is concerned, is a cryptic order and the Additional Commissioner (Administration) should not have passed a cryptic order instead he has should have passed a reasoned order, if, he was inclined to reject the interim relief application moved by the petitioner, but, considering the facts of the case specially the admitted factual scenario as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that Gata No.982 which is the land in dispute in respect of which Patta was allegedly granted to the private opposite parties parties long back, is Abadi land, meaning thereby, the petitioners do not lay their claim to such land, whether by way of possession or by way of title and also in view of the report annexed by the petitioners themselves as Annexure No.5 wherein paragraph 3 of the complaint has been replied and it has been mentioned that Gata No. 976 which belongs to the petitioners is adjoining a puccka road on the southern side and it is this road which is used for egress and ingress, there is no merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that their egress and ingress would be stopped by raising construction.
As regards the contention that house has not been constructed thereby violating the provision of Rule 115-P of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1951') it is the petitioners' own case that the opposite parties came to take possession of the land in the year 2018 and there is no evidence before this Court atleast at this stage to show that they had been given possession of the land of which Patta had been granted to them earlier so as to attract the aforesaid provision contained in Rule 115-Q of the Act, 1951 or the provisions corresponding to it as contained in Rule 2016 made under the Code, 2006.
The Revisional Court shall consider this aspect of the matter in the light of what has been stated hereinabove after verifying the fact as to when was the possession granted to the private opposite parties 6 to 11, if at all it was granted. However, as the Additional Commissioner (Administration) has passed a cryptic order without looking into the aforesaid facts, therefore, he is ordered to revisit his order dated 24.05.2019 not only on the question of interim relief but also on the question admission and pass appropriate orders in this regard in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.8.2019 Vijay (Rajan Roy, J)