Indrajeet And Another vs State Of U.P. And 31 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 21055 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159289
 
Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2463 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Indrajeet And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 31 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai,Pramod Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Pankaj Kumar Gupta,Sandeep Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

1. Heard Shri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for newly impleaded respondents Nos. 30 and 31 and Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 28.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:-

"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing/modifying the impugned order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow/respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 8 of the writ petition) with a direction to the opposite parties to maintain status quo on spot and not to raise any construction over the land in question as well as order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumariyaganj, Siddharth Nagar (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition).

(2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the opposite parties not to raise any construction over the land in dispute and to maintain status quo with regard to the nature and possession over the land in dispute and to maintain status quo with regard to the nature and possession over the land in question during the pendency of Case No. T202017630402017 of 2020, Indrajeet and another vs. Ashok Kumar and others before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumariyaganj, Siddharth Nagar."

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proceedings under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Durmariyaganj-respondent No. 3 in Case No. 02017/2020 Computerized Case No. T202017630402017 (Indrajeet vs. Ashok Kumar and other).

4. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is that the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 6.1.2021 rejected the application for interim relief. Against the aforesaid rejection of the application for interim relief, the petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2) and the same was registered as REV/461/2021/Siddharthnagar (Computerized Case No. R2021176300461) (Indrajeet and others vs. Ashok Kumar), under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. The learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 18.3.2021 issued notices to the respondents and granted an interim order of status quo. The aforesaid revision was finally decided vide order dated 16.6.2023.

6. By means of the aforesaid order dated 16.6.2023 the learned Board of Revenue dismissed the said revision. However vide the said order dated 16.6.2023 the learned Board of Revenue directed the trial court to decide the pending case after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned on merits within a maximum period of six months.

7. Further, the learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 16.6.2023 granted an interim protection to the effect that till the disposal of the suit, the property in question shall not be transferred.

8. Against the aforesaid order dated 16.6.2023, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition.

9. Shri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another vs. Raja Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur and others reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-

"...... But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. Moreso, when appeal is admitted. Previous history of litigation cannot be over-looked..........."

10. Per contra, Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the same is against the remand order and the petitioners have every right to raise their grievance before the court of Sub Divisional Officer (respondent No. 3) where the suit is already pending for adjudication. He further submits that an interim protection has already been granted by the revisional court vide order dated 16.6.2023, and as such, the petitioners have no occasion to challenge the said order by means of the present writ petition.

11. Learned Senior Advocate has also drew the attention of this Court to the annexure No. 10 to the writ petition that is an application dated 22.6.2023 preferred by the petitioners before the Sub Divisional Officer (respondent No. 2), wherein he has inter alia prayed that till the disposal of the pending case, nature of the property may not be changed.

12. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, at this stage, he confines his prayer to the extent that this Court may issue a direction to the learned Sub Divisional Officer-respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate orders on the above mentioned application dated 22.6.2023 on the next date fixed by taking into consideration the seriousness of the prayer made in the said application.

13. Learned Senior Advocate Sri Anil Bhushan and Shri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submits that they have no objection in case, if such a direction is issued to respondent No. 3-Sub Divisional Officer to the extent that the application dated 22.6.2023 pending before him, be decided strictly in accordance with law on the next date fixed.

14. In view of the nature of order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 4 to 27 is dispensed with.

15. Taking into consideration the above situation, this Court is of the view that no usefull purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending in the teeth of the fact that since there is already a direction issued by the Revisional Court directing the lower court to decide the proceedings pending before it within a period of six months with a further direction to the extent that no transfer shall be made in respect of the property in question till the final disposal of the suit.

16. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer, Domariyaganj, district Siddharth Nagar (respondent No. 3) is directed to pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid application dated 22.6.2023 on its merit, strictly in accordance with law, on the next date already fixed in the said case.

17. In the interest of justice, it is further provided that till the disposal of the aforesaid application dated 22.6.2023, as contained in annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, there shall be a status quo in respect of the property in question.

18. It is made clear that the Sub Divisional Officer shall pass appropriate orders on the said application dated 22.6.2023 on its own merit strictly in accordance with law without being prejudiced or influenced by the order of status quo passed by this Court herein above.

19. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Order Date :- 8.8.2023

Sumaira