Allahabad High Court
Virendra Narayan Singh And 2 ... vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1199 of 2022
Petitioner :- Virendra Narayan Singh And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that objection under Section 9A(2) filed by the petitioners was decided in favour of the petitioners by the Consolidation Officer vider order dated 24.02.2020. Against the order of Consolidation Officer, State filed an Appeal under Section 11 (1) of UPCH Act, which was allowed arbitrarily by the appellate Court. Petitioners filed a Revision under Section 48 of UPCH Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation bearing Revision No.1290 of 2021 along with stay application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order rejected the stay application without considering the petitioners' case. Hence, the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that property in dispute is an ancestral property of the petitioners' family and the petitioners are still in possession of the disputed property, but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally rejected the stay application filed by the petitioners and fixed the date in the revision for disposal. 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 under appeal or revision has serious civil consequences then interim protection be granted.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the appeal filed by the State has been allowed and the property has been vested in State, as such petitioner is not entitled any interim protection.
Considered the submission of the parties as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Chand Yadav and another (supra).
In view of the facts that property in dispute is an ancestral property of the petitioners' family and petitioners are stated to be in possession of the disputed property, the interest of the justice will be served by directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the pending Revision No.1290 of 2021 expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Till the disposal of the revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, parties shall maintain status quo and shall not create any 3rd party interest with regard to the disputed properly.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.7.2022
PS
