Allahabad High Court
Shiv Mangal Dubey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief ... on 24 June, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2186 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shiv Mangal Dubey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Civil Secrtt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Bajpai,Jagdish Prakash Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed with following relief:-
"(i) Issue a order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant the stay/injunction order in favour of petitioner as the appeal has been admitted, in the interest of justice."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed a case before Nayab Tehsildar Jagdishpur which was decided against the petitioner and thereafter he preferred an appeal under Section 210 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the SDO . He has drawn attention towards the order passed by the SDO wherein the appeal was admitted and the order of the lower court was not stayed. He submits that if the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar was not stayed and once the appeal is admitted, the whole purpose of the appeal will be frustrated if interim relief is not been granted. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a case reported in Mool Chand Yadav and another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484 and has referred para 4 of the aforesaid judgment, which is quoted as under:-
"4. We heard Mr. S.N. Kacker, learned Counsel for the appellants, and the respondents appeared by Caveat through Mr. Manoj Swarup, Advocate. We are not inclined to examine any contention on merits at present, but we would like to notice of the emerging situation if the operation of the order under appeal is not suspended during the pendency of the appeal. If the F. A.F.O. is allowed, obviously Mool Chand Yadav would be entitled to continue in possession. Now, if the order is not suspended in order to avoid any action in contempt pending the appeal, Mool Chand would have to vacate the room and handover the possession to the respondents in obedience to the Court's order. We are in full agreement with Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned advocate for respondents, that the Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. But if orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Manoj Swarup may be wholly right in submitting that there is intentional flouting of the" Court's order. We are not interdicting that finding. But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted. Previous history of litigation cannot be overlooked. And it is not seriously disputed that the whole of the building, Hari Bhawan, except one room in dispute is in possession of the Corporation. We accordingly suspend the operation of the order dated 6th August 1982 directing the appellants to handover the possession of the room to the respondents till the disposal of the first appeal against that order pending in the High Court of Allahabad. Mr. Manoj Swarup requests that both the earlier and later Appeals should be heard together as early as possible, We order accordingly and request the High Court if it considers proper in its own discretion to hear both the appeals as expeditiously as possible in order to avoid the continuance of the boiling situation. The appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submission aforesaid.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, the respondent no. 2 Sub Divisional Officer/S.D.M. Musafirkhana, District Amethi, is hereby directed to conclude the proceeding of the appeal after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously say within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order produced before him, strictly in accordance with law.
Till the decision taken on the appeal, the parties shall maintain status quo.
It is further provided that no party shall take adjournment before the SDO.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the claim as raised by the petitioner in the present petition.
Order Date :- 24.6.2022
Ujjawal
