HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 321/2010 (M/S) Km. Padma Kumari Devi. …Petitioner. Versus Master Shubham Kumar minor son of Shri S. Kumar through his mother and Natural guardian Smt. Arti Kumar W/o Shri S. Kumar R/o 16-C, Green Park, Extension, Dehradun And others. …Respondents. Shri Arvind Vashishtha, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 7 & 8, Shri V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri T.C. Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.1. Dated: April 8, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order dated 22.02.2010 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class/Pargana Magistrate Sadar, Dehradun in Case no. 13 of 2009-2010 ‘Master Shubham Kumar vs. Smt. Pushpa Prasad and others’ by which the Court below granted ex-parte interim injunction in favour of the respondent no.1. 2. It is alleged in the writ petition that respondent no.1 instituted a suit on 17.02.2010 before the Assistant Collector 1st Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mussoorie, Dehradun under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Alongwith the aforesaid case, the respondent no.1 also moved an application for interim injunction in which the Assistant Collector issued notices to the defendants fixing 2 22nd February, 2010 for hearing on the interim injunction application. It has been alleged in the writ petition that no steps were taken to serve notices upon the defendants and the interim injunction application was allowed vide order dated 22.02.2010 whereby ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent restraining the defendant/petitioner from transferring the property, carrying out any construction, alienating the nature of the property and directed for maintaining status-quo. 3. I have heard Shri Arvind Vashishtha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri T.C. Pandey, Shri R.C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that after the notices were issued to the defendant/petitioner on 17.02.2010, no steps were taken by the plaintiff, as required. He also drew my attention to annexure no.4 to the writ petition, which is in the question-answer form, issued from the office of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Dehradun, in which it is mentioned that steps were not taken by the plaintiff in compliance of the order dated 17.02.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of this fact alone, the impugned order passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class/ Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Dehradun deserves to the set-aside. 5. On the other hand Shri V.K. Kohli, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that there is nothing on record which could show that service of notice was not affected on the defendant/ petitioner. 3 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon considering the fact that no steps were taken by the plaintiff to serve notice upon the defendants in compliance of the order of the Trial Court, order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Assistant Collector/respondent no.8 is hereby set-aside. The writ petition is allowed. The Assistant Collector 1st Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Dehradun /respondent no.8 is directed to decide the interim injunction application moved by the plaintiff/ respondent no.1, afresh, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties, within a period of ten days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Interim order dated 18.03.2010 passed by this Court is vacated. 7. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, the parties shall bear their own costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) 08.04.2010 NCM: