An order passed by a Commissioner on a stay application is not an interlocutory order and is, therefore, appealable if it is a complete order itself and has a bearing on the order which might be later on passed by him.

1. We have heard the learned District Attorney (Revenue) and also the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and

2. The learned District Collector, Solan initiated the proceedings under section U8 of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 as amended by Act No. 6 of 1988 and confiscated the land comprising in Khasra No. 21, measuring 17 his was and Khasra No. 22/1 measuring 6-2 bighas in all Kitas 2 measuring 6-19 bighas, situated in village Jharmajari, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, alongwith structures etc. thereon in favour of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Feeling aggrieved by this order dated 29-10-1991, the present respondent No. 1 filed an appeal under section 61 of the Act ibid before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. The present respondent No. 1 also filed an application for staying the operation of order passed by the learned District Collector, Solan- The learned Divisional Commissioner vide his order dated 14-1-1992 after hearing the present respondent No- 1 accepted their request for maintaining the status quo regarding property and ordered that the status quo be maintained till the next date of hearing i. e. 20-1-1992. The present respondent No. 1 moved an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151, C P. C requesting that an interim injunction be issued in his favour and State be directed to open the seal and permit the present respondent No. 1 to occupy the premises in question till the disposal of the appeal. The learned Commissioner, Shimla Division, heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the present respondent No. 1 on the application and allowed the same vide his order dated 20-1-1992. He further directed the Collector, Solan District, to open the seal and permit the present respondent No. 1 to occupy the premises till the disposal of the appeal pending before him. The State Government aggrieved by this order dated 20-1-1992 of the learned Commissioner, Shimla Division, filed an appeal before us for setting aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner on 20-1-1992. We heard the learned District Attorney, who appeared on behalf of the State on the application filed by him for staying the implementation of the order dated 20-1-1992 of the Commissioner, Shimla Division and stayed its operation till further orders. Subsequently, the learned vice Counsel for the respondent No. 1 gave an application on 28-2-1992 for setting aside the ex-parte stay order granted in favour of the appellant State on 5-2-1992. The State Government also filed one application under section 151, C. P. C. for issuance of directions to respondent No. 1 to present himself for preparing inventory A copy of the application was given to the learned vice Counsel of the respondent No 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. I raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the learned Commissioner on 20-1-1992. In this respect, he cited 1970-RLR-33 in case "Amar Nath Barry v. Smt. Sarla Barry". The learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana in that order held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the proceedings before revenue officers. It was further held that section 80 of the Punjab Tenancy Act says that an appeal would lie to the Collector from an original or appellate order of an Assistant Collector. The order need not necessarily be the final order The criteria that have to be applied are firstly that order must be a formal expression of a decision which has a material bearing on the final decision and secondly it must also be a complete and self-contained order capable of standing on its own legs. An order which decided nothing and which is merely preliminary to further proceedings or is revertable before the issues that are dealt with are finally disposed of, would not by implication be the type of the order which "Mohan Lai etc v, Ladhu etc " (1969 RLR 119) was intended to cover. On the other hand, t