WPMS No. 2038 of 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. During the pendency of the application u/S 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the opposite party filed an application dated 3rd August, 2010 u/S 229-D for grant of an interim injection. The Court below, after hearing the parties, granted an injunction in favour of the opposite party, against which, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed and, consequently, the present writ petition has been filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that before passing an order on the application under Section 229-D of the Act, it was imperative for the Court to at least grant the basic minimum time to the plaintiff to file objection. It is not sufficient that the plaintiff was also heard but what is required is that the plaintiff should be granted a basic minimum time to file objection to that application. Since, this was not done, the order granting injunction on the very same day when the application was filed was not correct and amounts to denial of opportunity of hearing. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 3rd August, 2010 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The Assistant Collector is directed to decide the application of the opposite party u/S 229-D of the Act after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to file objection and, thereafter, decide the matter after hearing the parties. The writ petition is allowed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 06.12.2010 Shiv