Smt Nazma Begum Vs. Addl Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda & Ors

Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)

MISC. BENCH, 16472 of 2017, Judgment Date: Jul 25, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

 

AFR 
Court No. - 4 

Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 16472 of 2017 
Petitioner :- Smt Nazma Begum 
Respondent :- Addl Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda & Ors 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Srivastava 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Azad Khan 

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. 
 

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4. 
Considering the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to the opposite parties no. 5 to 18 is dispensed with. 
The petitioner herein filed an appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 being aggrieved against the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the S.D.M. concerned in a suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 vacating the interim protection granted earlier. The appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable. 
On a perusal of Section 207 conjointly with the IIIrd Scheduled referred therein the Court finds that in fact against an order on an application for grant of temporary injunction in a suit filed under Section 116 of the Code, 2006 an appeal would not lie, as, such an application is not mentioned in the IIIrd Schedule, though, suit proceedings under Section 116 are mentioned. The order of the S.D.M. is not a final order or decree passed in the suit nor in any application or proceedings specified in Column-II of the IIIrd Schedule, therefore, the appellate order does not suffer from any error, therefore, no interference is called for with the said order, however, as an appeal does not lie against such an order, therefore, a revision would lie under Section 210 of the Code, 2006 against the order of the S.D.M., but, the said remedy has not been availed. 
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party no. 18 had purchased the land measuring 24x40 feet in Gata No. 512 from one Gauhar Ali from whom the petitioner has also purchased the land in the same Gata No. 512, however, the opposite party no. 18 is making constructions in excess of the area of land purchased by her, which would create complication in the suit for division of shares and partisan, therefore, the S.D.M. had earlier rightly granted the status quo order and even if the parties have put in appearance there was sufficient ground for continuing the same so as to facilitate a complete and effective adjudication of the controversy, however, erroneously the said Court had vacated the interim order on grounds which are not germane in the eyes of law. 
Be that as it may, let the petitioner avail the remedy of revision against the said order before the competent Court, however, to facilitate it, it is provided that for a period of one month status quo as existing on the spot shall be maintained by the parties. 
This protection granted by this order shall not continue beyond the said period unless of course the revisional Court decides to grant some interim protection, which would be permissible. 
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the merits of the controversy at all and all the parties are free to raise all the relevant plea before the revisional Court. 
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 
 

Order Date :- 25.7.2017/R.K.P.