Allahabad High Court
Smt. Mayawati vs State U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51084
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6596 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Mayawati
Respondent :- State U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard.
In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents is dispensed with.
The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-
"I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of set aside the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Opposite Party No. 3 contained as (Annexure No. 1) to this Writ Petition.
II) Issue a order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Opposite party no. 2 to decide the Appeal No. C202304000001450, Mayawati Vs. Mool singh Under Section 24(4) U.P. Revenue Code 2006, at the earliest possible preferably (and contained in (Annexure No. 4) to this writ petition.
III) Issue a order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Opposite Parties No. 4 have not disturb the peaceful possession of the land over the Gata No. 2978B/0.8360 situated in Village Jangal Ramnagar, Tehsil & District Amethi, during pendency of the present Petition."
Admittedly the petitioner has approached the appellate authority assailing the order dated 27.01.2023 which has also been assailed in the present petition, by means of filing Appeal No. C202304000001450 (Mayawati Vs. Mool Singh) under Section 24(4) U.P. Revenue Code 2006.
It is trite law that the authority who can pass the final order can also pass interim order. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Bhalotia vs. State of U.P. reported in 2000 (18) LCD 532. Relevant paras of the same read as under:-
"17. In the end we would also like to point out that if the State Government entertains a revision against an order granting permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act at the instance of a third party who is a person aggrieved it will also have power to pass interim order like stay of the operation of the order of the Vice-Chairman or staying further construction or development. In Income Tax Officer v. Mah Knnhi [ AIR 1969 SC 430.] , the Supreme Court while considering the powers conferred on Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by Sections 254 and 255 of Income Tax Act observed as under:?
"It is a firmly established rule that an express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. When Section 254 confers appellate jurisdiction it impliedly grants the power of doing all such acts or employing such means as are essentially necessary to its execution and that the statutory power carries with it the duty in proper cases to make such orders for staying proceedings as will prevent the appeal, if successful, from being rendered nugatory."
18. The law is well settled that every Tribunal has ancillary power to grant interim orders in order to carry out effectively the statutory duty cast upon it. If a proper case it made out, it will be open to the State Government to stay the order granting permission or to stop construction or development work otherwise it may lead to complication in the event the order granting permission is set aside or revoked."
Considering the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain in this petition for the reliefs no. (I) and (III). Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Authority concerned to conclude the pending appeal preferred by the petitioner within three months from the next date fixed in the appeal, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation. For conducting the proceedings in the time specified, unnecessary adjournments be avoided. It is further provided that in case, petitioner prefers an application seeking interim protection, the authority concerned, shall consider and dispose of the same, expeditiously.
The petitioner would also file an undertaking before the authority concerned, indicating therein that he would not take any adjournment and he will appear on each dates.
It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.8.2023
Jyoti/-
