Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19492 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43439 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Shanti Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar,Rabindra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Additional Commissioner (Judicial) II, Mandal Bareilly as respondent no. 7 in the array of the parties during the course of the day. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Ram Sajivan Prajapati, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anjani Kumar Shahwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent no. 4. 3. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayer:- "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure No. 5) passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Bareilly Mandal Bareilly in Case No. 2134 of 2024, under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Duliram & ot6hers Versus Shanti Devi & others) in the interest of justice." 4. It is argued that a revision filed by the private respondents namely respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Bareilly Mandal, District Bareilly which was numbered as Case No. 2134/2024 Computerized Case No. C202412000002134 (Duliram and others Vs. Shanti Devi and others), under section 210 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in which an order was passed by the respondent no. 7 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) II, Mandal Bareilly on 21.11.2024 directing the parties to maintain status quo. Order reads as follows:- "Printed at: 07-11-2024 05:18 PM आददेश प्ቔक न्ययाययालय: अपर आयय्ሹ (न्यया०), दवविततीय मण्डल : बरदेलती, जनपद: बरदेलती, तहसतील: मतीरगगंज वियाद सगंख्यया : -2134/2024 कगं प्ययटरतीकक त वियाद सगंख्यया:-C202412000002134 दलतीरयाम आवद बनयाम शयानन्त ददेविती आवद अगंतगरत धयारयार-210, अधधवनयम: उ्ቈर ्ቚददेश रयाजस्वि सगंवहतया - 2006 आददेश 21-11-2024 ्ቚस्तयत। उभयप्ቌ कदे अधधवि्ሹयाओगं कको स्थगन ्ቚयाथरनया प्ቔ वदनयागंत 07-11-2024 पर वविस्तयार सदे सयनया गयया। वनगरयानतीकतयार कदे अधधवि्ሹया दयारया स्थगन ्ቚयाथरनया प्ቔ मम धलयदे गयदे आधयार उवचित ्ቚततीत हकोतदे हहै। अतर प्ቌኘ᭎ कको वनदरवशत वकयया जयातया हहै वक वविवियावदत भयवम पर वदनयागंक 02-12-2024 तक यथयानस्थवत बनयायती जयायदे। प्ቔयाविलती सयनवियाई हदेतय वदनयागंक 02-12-2024 कको पदेश हको। (मनकोज कय मयार) अपर आयय्ሹ (न्ययावयक) बरदेलती मण्डल, बरदेलती।" 5. While going through the aforesaid, the Court is satisfied that while granting the order of status quo no reasons whatsoever has been assigned. 6. It is settled law that while granting or rejecting injunction recording of reasons is mandatory. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rayat Shikshan Sanstha vs Suneel Shiva Gaikwad reported in (2010) 15 SCC 539. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:- "It is well settled proposition of law that when an order of injunction is passed, the Court is required to record the reasons. Similarly, when the Court feels that in the facts and circumstances of a particular cases, order of injunction is not necessary, it must record the reasons for doing so, taking into consideration all the relevant factors, particularly the nature of the controversy involved." 7. In this view of the matter, the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Bareilly Mandal Bareilly is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Respondent No.7/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Bareilly Mandal Bareilly is directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, unless there is no legal impediment. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Arti Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad