Brijesh Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6046 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 10680 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Brijesh Tiwari
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 and Mr. Mohan Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.4.

Petition has been filed against order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, opposite party no.2 whereby the appeal filed by petitioner under Section 38(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been admitted but the application for interim relief has been rejected by the same order.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that dispute is with regard to Gata no.746 situate in Village Lambhua, District Sultanpur having old Gata No.1044 Miljumla. It is submitted that name of petitioner's ancestors had been recorded continuously over the plot in question since the revenue year 1359 and it was only subsequently during consolidation operation that an entry of pond was made over the property in question in paper 41 during consolidation proceedings. It is denied that the disputed property is a pond. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that even as per order dated 10.11.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, there is absolutely no discussion with regard to the submission made by petitioner. The appeal against aforesaid order has been admitted but no reasons have been indicated for rejecting the application for interim relief, which is against the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and others v. Raza Buland Sugar Company, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 484 in which it has been propounded that once the appeal has been admitted, interim relief should ordinarily be granted in order to preserve the status of the disputed property. Learned counsel for petitioner has also drawn attention to the Khatauni annexed to the writ petition indicating the names of ancestors of petitioner having been recorded over the entire disputed property.

Mr. Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties has disputed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the ancestors of petitioner were recorded only over a portion of the disputed property and not the entire property.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, the opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file a detailed counter affidavit.

List this case in the week commencing 12.7.2021.

Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed not to disturb the petitioner's possession over the disputed property.

Order Date :- 7.6.2021

kvg/-