Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 229b in Santosh Aggarwal vs Additional Commissioner on 2 July, 2021Matching Fragments
7. The records and pleadings, reflect that prior to the preference of the revision before the court of Additional Commissioner on 15.03.2021 under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act 1901, there has had been the prior pending proceedings drawn under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "UPZA&LR Act"), for the declaration of rights in relation to the land in dispute, and as per the pleadings raised in the revision, which has been extracted above (i.e. Para Nos.5 and
15), it seems that the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, before whom, the principal proceeding under Section 229B of the UPZA&LR Act for declaration of rights, had been filed, it had exercised its powers under Section 229D of the UPZA&LR Act, and had passed the interim injunction, whereby the parties to the proceedings under Section 229B of the UPZA&LR Act, for the same disputed property, were directed to restrain themselves from any act of wrongful interference over the property in question, they were further directed to not to change the nature of the disputed property, and further a direction was also issued that the opposite party to the proceedings under Section 229B of the UPZA&LR Act, that it will not transfer the property in any manner whatsoever, by creating any third party interest.
8. The revisionist to the present revision had pleaded that after the grant of the interim order of injunction under Section 229D of the UPZA & LR Act, by the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, with proceedings under Section 229B of UPZA&LR Act for declaration, the entries of the same was made in the revenue records and in fact the revisionist/respondents, while assailing the orders of 19.03.2020 and 21.03.2020, wanted to convey to the Revisional Court, that prior to the institution of the revisional proceedings under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, since there has had been an interim injunction order, which was granted under Section 229D of the UPZA&LR Act; in a regular proceedings, no sale as such could have been made by the petitioner, through its attorney or himself, in any manner whatsoever, because it was restrained by the interim injunction order, passed under Section 229D of UPZA&LR Act.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the death of Late Smt. Indrawati, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records, by virtue of an order, which was passed by the Sub Naib Tehsildar, on 08.10.2020. In fact, this order too is not a complete extract of the "Khatauni", for the reason being that the entry which had been made in the revenue records on 08.10.2020, was on the basis of the Form 6 Part 2, S.No.1558, dated 24.09.2020, on the basis of which, the revenue entries were allegedly said to have been made in the name of the present petitioner. These revenue entries rather reiterated, that it would run contrary to the interim orders which were passed by the competent revenue court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, in regular proceedings for declaration of rights, under Section 229B of UPZA&LR Act, who has already passed an order of injunction restraining the sale of the property in dispute.