The court upheld the validity of an interim order despite procedural claims regarding caveat linkage, emphasizing that the revision was filed prior to the caveat.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajay Kumar Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Shri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

2. In view of the controversy, which is involved in the instant petition, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by respondent No. 4 entertaining the revision preferred by private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and granting an interim order, whereby the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Tehsildar impugned therein has been stayed.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mutation proceedings were being contested between the petitioner and private respondent Nos. 6 and 7. After hearing the parties, the court of Tehsildar, Payagpur, District-Bahraich had passed an order in favour of the petitioner on 01.05.2024. The petitioner apprehending that private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 may escalate the matter, consequently, in order to avoid passing of any ex-parte order, the petitioner had filed a caveat in the court of Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, a copy of the said caveat has been brought on record as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had filed his caveat on 13.05.2024. However, private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 also filed their revision before the Commissioner on the very same date, i.e. 13.05.2024. However, no fruitful proceedings were held on 13.05.2024, rather the matter was deferred for 21.05.2024. Thereafter, it was taken up by the court of Commissioner on 12.06.2024 and he transferred the matter to the court of Additional Commissioner Administration-I, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. The matter was again taken up by the Additional Commissioner on 20th June, 2024, but was deferred. However, on 27.06.2024, the revision was entertained and the interim order dated 27.06.2024 was passed, which is under challenge.

6. It is urged that despite the caveat being available on record, the same was not duly reflected, as a result, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to put up his case while the revision and the interim application moved by the private respondents was to be considered by respondent No. 4.

7. It is in furtherance thereof, it has been urged that the Board of Revenue has formulated certain rules and regulations to ensure that the caveat petitions are filed on the on-line platform and the moment it is registered, it gets linked with the main petition whenever and wherever it is filed and the matter is listed and the details of the caveat is reflected, which can be seen on the website of the court concerned.

8. It is thus urged that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner was taken by surprise that despite having filed his caveat on 13.05.2024, the order dated 27.06.2024 was passed, as a result, the purpose of filing the caveat was frustrated as the interim order was passed without noticing the petitioner and in such circumstances, the impugned order is bad and deserves to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought an additional relief for issuing of certain directions regarding action to be taken against official concerned of the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda as they did not follow the guidelines or procedure as prescribed while dealing with the caveat.

10. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 20th August, 2024 had required learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions from the Board of Revenue insofar as the rules and regulations regarding the caveat are concerned.

11. Learned Standing Counsel in furtherance thereof has provided a copy of the written instruct