Allahabad High Court
Ram Charan And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35632 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ram Charan And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Verma,Madan Mohan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avinash Chandra Srivastava
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Madan Mohan, Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava for respondent No.4, Gaon Panchayat.
The instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by respondent No.2, Additional Commissioner Agra Division Agra in so far as the stay application filed by petitioners in Revision No. 1266 of 2020 (Computer No. C202001000001266 Ram Charan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). It is also prayed that the pending revision be also decided expeditiously.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were granted lease in the year 1982 in respect to khasra plot No. 1385M area 1.011 hectare for agriculture purposes and on the basis of the lease, the petitioners came in possession of the plot allotted to them. He further submitted that on the basis of lease executed in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners were recorded as bhoomidhar with transferable rights in the due course of time. He further submitted that the instant proceeding has been initiated in the year 2020 under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was barred by limitation as provided under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as well as U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 but the petitioners' lease has been cancelled without considering the provisions contained under the Act/ Code. He further submitted that revision filed against the order cancelling the petitioners' lease was admitted by the Additional Commissioner but without consigning any reason, the stay application has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the lease was granted in favour of the petitioners in the year 1982 and petitioners is still in possession, as such, the petitioners is entitled to the interim protection during pendency of the revision before the Additional Commissioner. He further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 2007(102) RD 498; Ali Sher vs. State of U.P. Through Collector, Bijnor and others in which it has been held that if the order under appeal/ revision has serious civil consequences then operation of the order must be suspended during pendency of appeal or revision. Paragraphs No.4 and 5 of the Sher Ali (Supra) are as follows :-
"1. It is well settled that once an appeal or revision is entertained by a higher Court against an order having civil consequences stay normally should be granted to avoid swinging pendulum unless the Court for the reasons to be recorded finds that there is no case for grant of stay as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand v. Raza Buland Sugar Industries."
2. Considering the facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 16.11.2006 is hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. Appellate Court is directed to disposal of the appeal of petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him and till the disposal of appeal as directed above, parties shall maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession over the land in dispute.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel as well as Counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that writ petition against the interlocutory order rejecting the stay application by the Revisional Court is not maintainable. However necessary direction can be issued for the expeditious disposal of the pending revision. They submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders.
I have considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute about the fact that revision filed by the petitioners has been admitted but stay application has been rejected. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioners was granted lease in the year 1982 which has been challenged in the year 2020 which is hit by the provisions contained under Section 198(6) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. ACT.
In view of the ratio of the law laid down by Sher Ali (Supra) as well as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent No.2, Additional Commissioner, (Administration), Agra Division, Agra to decide the pending Revision No. 1266 of 2020 (Computer No. C202001000001266 Ram Charan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) expeditiously preferably within period of two months on day to day basis from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. It is made clear that both parties will cooperate in early disposal of pending revision.
Till the disposal of the revision by the respondent No.2, Additional Commissioner, (Administration), Agra Division, Agra, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature and possession of the plot in dispute.
Order Date :- 23.1.2023
Vandana Y.
