Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

10. It is an admitted case of the petitioner, that after his name was recorded in the revenue records by the orders of Sub Naib Tehsildars', order dated 08.10.2020 after 32 years of the order dated 17.06.1988, he had executed the two sale deeds of part of the property i.e. on 04.12.2020 in favour of one Mr. Amjad Ali, after exchange of the sale consideration of Rs.46,11,000/- and another sale deed, which was executed by the petitioner in favour of one Mr. Naresh Kumar Gaira and Smt. Poonam Gaira W/o Mr. Naresh Kumar Gaira, during the subsistence of the injunction order which was passed under Section 229D of UPZA&LR Act, in the suit for declaration of rights, filed under Section 229B of UPZA&LR Act.

(2) This Court cannot also be oblivions of the fact that prior to the institution of the revision, if the reference to paragraph nos.5 and 15 of the memorandum of revision, which has already been extracted above, is taken into consideration, it is stated that in a regular proceedings for the declaration of rights under Section 229B of the UPZA& LR Act, where the power to grant of an interim protection has been exercised under Section 229D of the UPZA&LR Act, still when the transfer of the property was restrained and despite of the said restraint order, the sale deeds were executed by the petitioner through his attorney Mr. Dhanjeet Kalita on 14.12.2020. This itself shows the implications and intention of the petitioner, to further complicate the judicial proceedings, by creating new rights by sale of property, which ought to have been safeguarded by the impugned order.