Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79163 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15188 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dhananjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Case No.279 of 2025, Computerized Case No.C202511000000279 (Jai Prakash and others Vs. Satya Prakash) under Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 3. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner is that petitioner and the private respondents belongings to the same family having separate great grand- father. The fourth respondent herein, filed a Suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 against the petitioner seeking partition of the entire land. In the said suit the present petition was the defendant no.4. 4. In the aforesaid suit, preliminary decree was prepared on 11.11.2004 and, accordingly, the map was prepared. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the said preliminary decree was never challenged by either of the parties. Thereafter, final order was passed and the decree was prepared accordingly, on 24.02.2006 and 07.03.2006. 5. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that initially all parties accepted the preliminary decree and accordingly Khatauni was prepared, but at some stage, one Tezram filed an appeal against the order dated 24.02.2006 and decree dated 07.03.2006 which was registered as Appeal No.12/2005-06 before the learned Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut under Section 331 of the Z.A. Act. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. Thereafter, the said judgment and order dated 28.09.2007 was challenged by way of Second Appeal under Section 331(3) of the U.P.Z.A & LR Act and the said Second Appeal No.00030/2007 (Jai Prakash and others v. Udham Singh and others) under Section 331(3) of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, 1950, came to be dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the learned Board of Revenue. 6. After the dismissal of the aforesaid Second Appeal, the petitioner filed an execution case before the court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Baghpat, which was registered as Case No.7391 of 2024 (Satya Prakash v. Udam Singh @ Udham Sigh). The said execution case was finally decided vide order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Baghpat whereby a direction was issued to the Tehsildar Baghpat to put the parties in possession over their respective part of the land as per the final decree dated 07.03.2006. 7. Against the aforesaid order dated 13.01.2025 passed in execution proceeding, the private respondent Nos.4 to 10 filed revision under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 before the Court of learned Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The said revision has been registered as Case No.279 of 2025, Computerized Case No.C202511000000279 (Jai Prakash and others v. Satya Prakash). 8. The learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner filed Caveat before the Court of learned Commissioner/respondent no.2 in respect of the aforesaid order dated 13.01.2025. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Commissioner/respondent no.2 by ignoring the caveat filed by the petitioner passed the interim order on 04.04.2025 behind the back of the petitioner/caveator, merely on the oral request made by the revisionist/respondent. 10. It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that the revision filed under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & LR Act, 1950 is not maintainable being against the execution order dated 04.04.2025 which has been passed by the court in the execution proceedings and the learned Commissioner/respondent no.2 without looking into the legal question of jurisdiction, entertained the said revision and passed ex parte interim order. 11. Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate very emphatically submitted that the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 is absolutely a non est order having being passed at the back of the petitioner, depriving the petitioner/caveator any opportunity of defence. Further, the same has been passed on an unsustainable ground of 'law and order situation'. Moreover, the impugned order does not reflect any reason that persuaded the learned Commissioner/respondent no.2 to pass such an unusual order that too, on the oral request of the revisionist. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Commissioner/respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 without taking into consideration the fact that the preliminary decree was passed in the year 2004 and final decree was passed in the year 2005 and there was no interim order since then. Further, the possession have already been given to the parties as per the final decree on 25.02.2025. 12. This Court has been informed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that next date fixed in the Revision No.279 of 2025 is '19.05.2025'. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions advanced by learned Senior Advocate, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served to keep the present writ petition pending. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut/respondent no.2 to revisit the interim protection granted vide impugned order dated 04.04.2025 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 14. It is made clear that the extension, if any, of the aforementioned interim order shall be made only by passing a reasoned order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/caveator. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 A.N. Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad