1 (1)- D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.595/2006 (Bhanwar Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) (2)- D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.596/2006 (Bachana Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) (3)- D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.597/2006 (Bhakhar Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of Order :: 24.4.2007 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, for the appellants. Mr. LR Upadhyaya, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These appeals are directed against the rejection of prayer for interim relief granted during the pendency of the writ petition which has been vacated without assigning any reason. While admitting the appeals, the Division Bench has observed that if interim relief is granted without considering the writ petition on merit, the writ petition is likely to become infructuous and therefore, ex-parte ad- interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 26.9.2005 has been allowed to be continued which as noticed above has been vacated without making any speaking order. We have examined the merits of the appeals. For the purposes of appeals, the facts which emerge from the material on record are 2 that the appellant in each case has been allotted land in question on temporary cultivation in the year 1983 and was being renewed from year to year. In the year 1986, the same was cancelled which was appealed against. In the first instance, respondents were restrained from alloting land in question to any one else. The Revenue Appellate Authority by order dated 15.11.1997 allowed all these three appeals and directed for allotment of land to the respective appellants and since then the present appellants-petitioners were in possession of the land in question. It is only after three years of the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, the State Government preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has set-aside the order dated 15.11.97 vide its order under challenge in these appeals. As noticed above, in the first instance while admitting the writ petition on 26.9.2005, the learned Single Judge passed ad-interim order protecting the possession of the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. However, by the orders under appeal in all these three cases the interim order has been vacated without assigning any reason. Apparently, the person who was holding temporary cultivation under a valid grant acquired right to get a permanent allotment of land cultivated by him on 3 priority basis. In fact, the petitioners had been allotted land through the remedial measures availed by them and for three years the respondent-State remain silent and land was allowed to be cultivated by the petitioners. If without decision of the appeals, appellants have been evicted from the land and the land is alloted to some one else, the petitioners- appellants shall not only suffer irreparable injury but the whole petition is likely to become infructuous because if the land is allotted to someone else it will cease to be available for permanent allotment to them on due consideration. On the other hand, the State is not going to suffer any injury in case the disputed land is allotted to the petitioner-appellant or some one else. In the circumstances, we allow these appeals and the impugned order dated 20.7.2006 is set aside. The ad-interim order passed in each case shall continue to remain in force until the decision of writ petition by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, all these three appeals are allowed. No costs. (BHANWAROO KHAN),J. (RAJESH BALIA),J. /rm