The court emphasized the importance of not prejudicing the case of the parties in pending proceedings and found it inappropriate to consider certain judgments cited.

Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjai Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UP ZA & LR Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as 'Act, 1950'), for cancellation of an allotment made in favour of two persons, namely, Virendra Kumar and Pramod Kumar, in the year 1966.

3. Upon the proceedings being initiated, an interim order of status quo, was passed. Subsequently, the order was vacated on 21.01.2016.

4. Against the order vacating the interim order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which was entertained and again an interim order was granted. Even this interim order was, subsequently, vacated on 24.5.2016.

5. Hence, this writ petition challenging the two orders whereby interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo, have been vacated.

6. In view of submissions made, the original records were summoned and were produced for perusal by this Court.

7. On the basis of the instructions received, learned Standing Counsel was directed to file an affidavit. A compliance affidavit has been filed and is on record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit, thereto.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the matter is being decided finally.

10. It has been submitted by learned Standing Counsel that the lease, in favour of the Pramod Kumar and Virendra Kumar, was granted in pursuance of the resolution of Gaon Sabha dated 10.12.1966.

11. The Assistant Collector (First Class) suo moto initiated proceedings for cancellation of this allotment. However, after hearing the allottees, the proceedings were dropped vide order dated 18.4.1970 and the allotment, in favour of the Pramod Kumar and Virendra Kumar, was affirmed. Thereafter, it appears that a series of sale-deeds were executed. Ultimately, a sale-deed was executed in favour of the respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 7, thereafter, obtained a declaration under Section 143 of the Act, 1950, as regards the land in question, after having been mutated thereon.

12. It appears that certain constructions were being raised by the respondent whereupon proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act, 1950, for cancellation of an allotment made in the year 1966, have been initiated by the petitioner, leading to the sequence of events narrated in the initial part of this order.

13. From the facts noticed above, it would be clear that the instant proceedings are a second round of proceedings for cancellation of the allotment in favour of the Pramod Kumar and Virendra Kumar, which prima facie, is not maintainable. However, since, these proceedings are still pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to record a definite finding in this regard.

14. However, in view of the facts noticed above, I do not find it a case for grant of any interim order in favour of the petitioner. The interim orders granted by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court, in my considered opinion, have rightly been vacated.

15. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Assistant Collector (First Class) while initiating, suo moto action against the allottees, had enumerated as many as ten grounds for such suo moto action. However, without recording specific findings on each of these ten issues, the same authority has affirmed the allotment. Therefore, the order, affirming the allotment, passed in the year 1970, is vitiated.

16. In my considered opinion, this argument cannot be raised at this stage. The order dated 18.4.1970 has admittedly not been challenged and the same has, therefore, attained finality. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, without substance.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following authorities:

(i) Jiv Nandan vs. Collector, Mau and others [1998 RD 790];

(ii) Anil Kumar vs. State of UP through Secretary, Revenue Departmen