Allahabad High Court
Lalmani @ Lalman And Another vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1884 of 2022
Petitioner :- Lalmani @ Lalman And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harendra Prakash Dwivedi,Shrinath
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Mr. Harendra Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners along with their brother respondent No.6 are recorded over the disputed plot No. 538 area 0.2950 hectare. He further submitted that petitioners filed a suit for partition under Section 116 of the U.P Land Revenue Code, 2006 impleading their brother as defendant and the trial court vide order dated 24.05.2022 granted interim order to the effect that parties shall maintain status quo till the date fixed in the case, but by subsequent order dated 22.06.2022 trial court has arbitrarily vacated the interim order without assigning any cogent reason. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2022, the petitioners filed revision before the Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed stating that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature. He next further submitted that over the joint plot respondent No.6 is raising construction in support of which, he annexed the photographs of the disputed plot as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
There is no dispute about the fact that petitioners and respondent No.6 are co-sharer of the disputed plots. They are jointly recorded and partition suit is pending before the trial court. Trial Court at one point of time has granted interim order but by subsequent order trial court has arbitrarily vacated interim order without assigning any reason.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool chand Yadav and another vs. Raza Buland Sabar Company Limited Rampur and others reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484 in which it is held that if the order has serious civil consequences then interim protection should be granted.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to respondent No.6 returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken within a week.
Respondent No.6 shall file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List in the second week of December, 2022.
In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, parties are directed to maintain strict status quo with respect to the nature and possession of the property in dispute for the period of eight months or till the disposal of the suit pending before the trial court whichever is earlier. It is further directed that the trial court shall take steps to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is also made clear that this Court has not stayed the proceeding of the suit pending before the trial court, which shall be decided in accordance with the observation made above.
Order Date :- 18.8.2022
PS*
