Urmila Devi vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 19355 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150168
 
Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9363 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Urmila Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Kameshwar Rao
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Mr. K.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav, learned Counsel for respondent no. 7, Nagar Panchayat.

2. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 21.2.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi Division, District- Chandauli in case No. 376 of 2023 under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by which interim order to maintain status quo has been granted during pendency o the appeal.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that appeal filed by the contesting respondent no.4 along with others is not maintainable. He further submitted that in the proceeding under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 order has been passed in accordance with law. He further submitted that in the earlier proceedings, the matter was decided in favour of petitioner, as such, the filing of appeal by the contesting respondents is nothing but abuse of process of law.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Counsel for the Nagar Panchayat submitted that against the judgment passed in the proceeding under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, appeal is provided, as such, petitioner should take whatever objection he wants before the Appellate Court and the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage of the proceeding.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that appeal filed by the contesting respondents is pending before the Additional Commissioner and the order for maintaining status quo has been passed during pendency of the appeal, as such, petitioner should contest the proceeding of pending appeal.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances, no interference is required against the impugned order. Writ petition is dismissed, however, respondent no.2, Additional Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi Division, District- Chandauli is directed to decide the pending appeal in accordance with law after hearing both the parties expeditiously preferably within period of three months 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.

Order Date :- 27.7.2023

Vandana Y.