SL.

No

Date

Office Notes, reports,

orders or proceedings

or directions and

Registrar’s order with

Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPMS No. 233 of 2019

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, for the

petitioner.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for

the State.

In a pending Suit, which was preferred

by the petitioner, who is a plaintiff under

Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, on an

application under Section 229D of the U.P.Z.A

& L.R. Act, the Court of Assistant Collector, 1^st

Class, Vikas Nagar, by an order dated

05.05.2011, had passed the following order:-

**i=koyh

is”kA

idk”ku

gsrq

vkns”kA i=koyh 20-6-11 dks izLrqr gksA

27-6-11 rd ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;h j[kh

tk;sA**

The power to grant of an interim order

in a proceedings under Section 229B of the

U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, as per the principles laid

down therein, the provisions of Section 229D of

the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act are supplemental in

nature, to the provisions contained under Order

39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, and it stipulates that

the authorities concerned, who passes an order

under Section 229B, has had to apply its judicial

mind and then pass an order, under Section

229D of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, and the same

principles under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the

CPC, would be applicable.

The said principles have also been laid

down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment

reported

in

ARC

2000

(2)

661,

A.

Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Challappan and

others, wherein it has been observed that if the

Court passes an interim order without recording

any reasons, or applying its mind, it will amount

to be a failure on the part of the Court to

discharge its duties by passing an order passed

without application of mind.

In the present case, as against the said

order dated 05.05.2011, a revision was preferred

by Smt. Lalita Devi. Before the learned

Revisional Court, the petitioner had argued that

the revision at the behest of Smt. Lalita Devi

would not be maintainable, because Smt. Lalita

Devi was not a party to the proceedings under

Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, of

which the petitioner was the plaintiff and hence

the revision at his behest would not be

maintainable.

In response to it, the learned counsel

for the State has drawn attention of this Court to

the findings which had been recorded therein

with regards to conveyance made in relation to

the property in question, as it has been dealt

with in the order itself.

This Court, at this stage is deliberately

refraining itself to address on the merits of the

matter, for the reason being that if the order

impugned dated 05.05.2011 itself, is taken into

consideration, there is no application of mind as

such nor any reason has been assigned to it, due

to which on a challenge being given in a

revision, the learned Revisional Court, has

remitted the matter back to the Court of

Assistant Collector to re-decide the application

of the petitioner for the grant of temporary

injunction afresh.

Looking to the facts and circumstances,

and the nature of the order, which is under

challenge, since its an order of remand, whereby

the application under Section 229D of the

U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, has been directed to be

decided a fresh in accordance with law and

particularly as per the opinion of this Court, it

has had to be decided in accordance with the

judgement of A. Venkatasubbiah (Supra), the

impugned order of remanding the matter to re-

decide the application under Section 229D of

the Act, no prejudice, as such has been caused

to the petitioner, because all his contentions in

relation

to

his

arguments

pertaining

to

supporting his application under Section 229D

of the Act, is still left open to be addressed by

him before the Court of Assistant Collector.

Hence, looking to the nature of the

order, this Court is not inclined to exercise its

extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Consti