HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1846 of 2010 (M/S) Smt. Sheela W/o Sri Jairam R/o Dhakrani, Tehsil Vikas Nagar Pargana Pachwadun, District Dehradun Through its attorney hholder Lalit Guleria S/o Basant singh Guleria … Petitioner Versus Sri Vijay Pal Singh and others …. Respondents Dated:- 28th October, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lalit Tiwari, the learned counsel for the private respondents and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned brief holder for the State. The petitioner filed a civil suit on 05.11.2009 against the defendant nos.1, 2 & 3 for cancellation of the sale deed. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed praying for the grant of temporary injunction. It is alleged that no injunction was granted. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the UPZA & LR Act) and an application under Section 229-D of the U.P. was filed for grant of a temporary injunction. The Assistant Collector, by an order dated 16.11.209, restrained the defendant from raising any construction on the land in question. Against this order, the defendants preferred a revision No.401 of 2010, which was allowed exparte by an order dated 03.03.2010 and the order dated 16.11.2009 was set aside. The revisional court directed the trial court to redecide the application under Section 229-D of the UPZA & LR Act after hearing both the parties. Against this order dated 03.03.2010, the petitioner preferred writ petition No.309 of 2010 (MS), which was allowed by an order dated 31st May, 2010. The writ court held that the order dated 03.03.2010 passed by the revisional court could not be sustained since it was an exparte order and that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the said order. The writ court, consequently, quashed the order dated 03.03.2010 and directed the revisional court to redecide the revision afresh, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order of the writ court dated 31st May, 2010, the defendants filed an application dated 22.09.2010 bringing on record the order of the writ court and also prayed that a fresh order be passed staying the order of the Assistant Collector passed under Section 229-D of the UPZA & LR Act. The revisional court issued notice to the petitioner fixing 06th December, 2010 and also stayed the order of the trial court dated 16.11.2009 passed under Section 229-D of the UPZA & LR Act. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the court finds that the Commissioner has made the same mistake in passing an exparte order. No reason has been assigned as to why an exparte order was essential while issuing notice to the petitioner. Since no reasons have been indicated in the impugned order, the court finds that the said order cannot be sustained. It is noteworthy to mention that as a result of the order of the writ court dated 31.05.2010, the order dated 16.11.2009 by which the defendants were restrained to raise construction became operative against the defendants. From 31.06.2010 till 22.09.2010, nothing has been indicated by the said defendant before the revisional court in his application dated 22.09.2010 as to why the said order should be stayed and 3 what was the urgency for staying the order. In the absence of cogent reasons being provided by the defendants in his application dated 22.09.2010, the court is constrained to observe that the revisional court committed a manifest error in passing a blanked stay order without providing any reasons. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Both the parties are directed to appear before the revisional authority on 06.12.2010 on which date the stay application would be heard and decided and, thereafter, the revision would be decided within four weeks thereafter. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 28.10.2010 LSR