Brahampal And 5 Ors. vs Board Of Revenue And 4 Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 524 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 19760 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Brahampal And 5 Ors.
 
Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 4 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- K.P. Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alka Srivastava,Mahesh Narain Singh,S.K. Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.

Heard Sri K.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri S.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

It is stated by Sri K.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 26.12.2013 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in Revision No. 46 of 2006-07 (Brahampal vs. Up Ziladhikari) that this Court vide order dated 14.3.2013 has allowed Writ -B No. 26881 of 2013 (Brahmpal vs. Board of Revenue) with the direction to the learned Member, Board of Revenue to decide the revision on merit expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months. Learned Member, Board of Revenue had dismissed the revision by observing that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of maintaining status quo he is at liberty to file an application seeking vacation of the interim order . It is contended by Sri Tripathi that the against the order maintaining status quo a stay vacation application was filed which was rejected vide order dated 23.8.2006 with the direction to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Member Board of Revenue to relegate the petitioner to again file stay vacation application.In his submissions the impugned order is in teeth of the judgment and order dated 14.3.2013 passed in the case of Brahmpal (supra).

Matter requires scrutiny.

Issue notice.

Notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1,2 and 4 have been accepted by the office of the learned chief standing counsel. Sri S.K.Srivastava has filed caveat on behalf of respondent no. 3 whereas Sri M.N.Singh has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5, therefore, notice need not be issued to respondent nos. 1 to 5.

The respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within two seeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter.

As an interim measure without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties  operation of the impugned order dated 26.12.2013 shall remain stayed.

Order Date :- 3.4.2014

samz