Allahabad High Court
Ram Bachan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 June, 2021
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 89
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6092 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ram Bachan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Yadav,Devbratt Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, who is available on video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1, 2 and 3 is available. However, no audio/video link could be established with Mr. R.P. Shukla, learned counsel representing respondent-4, Gaon Sabha.
This petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no.2- District Magistrate, Azamgarh to decide the stay application filed by petitioner in the appeal under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 preferred against order dated 05.11.2020 passed by respondent no.3- Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh in Case No.04889 of 2020 (Report Vs. Ram Bachan Yadav) under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and further direct the parties to maintain status-quo during the pendency of above-mentioned appeal.
Learned counsel for petitioner contends that against order dated 05.11.2020 passed by respondent no.3- Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh petitioner has preferred above-mentioned appeal. Along with the memo of appeal, petitioner also file a stay application. By means of order dated 05.11.2020 passed by respondent no.3- Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh not only eviction of petitioner has been directed from survey plot no.143 area 0.0070 hectare but also penalty to the tune of Rs.43,400/- has also been imposed against petitioner. The stay application has remained pending since 05.12.2020, i.e., for more than six months. On account of aforesaid, there is eminent threat of eviction of petitioner and also recovery of penalty.
Learned counsel for petitioner has then invited attention of Court to the judgment of Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company, (1982) 3 SCC 484 and on basis thereof he contends that courts should not permit a swinging pendulum during the pendency of appeal or revision. He further contends that where there are serious civil consequences operation of order impugned in appeal or revision should be stayed. However, irrespective of aforesaid, no interim order has been passed by respondent no.2- District Magistrate, Azamgarh on the stay application appended along with the memo of appeal filed by petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. R.P. Shukla, learned counsel representing respondent-4 could not dispute the facts as noted above and the submissions urged by learned counsel for petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents, Mr. R.P. Shukla, learned counsel representing respondent-4 and upon perusal of material brought on record, this Court does not find any good ground to keep the writ petition pending. Interest of justice shall better be served in case interim protection is granted to petitioner in terms of law laid down by Apex Court as noted above and direction is issued to respondent-2, District Magistrate, Azamgarh to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 05.11.2020 with all expedition.
Accordingly, it is provided that the effect and operation of order dated 05.11.2020 passed by respondent-3, Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh in Case No.04889 of 2020 (Report Vs. Ram Bachan Yadav) under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, shall remain stayed till the disposal of Appeal No.T202015060104889 of 2020, (Ram Bachan Vs. Tehsildar Judicial Sadar, Azamgarh) pending before responden-2, District Magistrate, Azamgarh. Respondent-2 shall make every endeavour to decide above-mentioned appeal expeditiously.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.6.2021/Saif
