Madan Shukla vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial)-I ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7610 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1965 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Madan Shukla
 
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Judicial)-I Lko. Division Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Sri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the State.

In view of the proposed order notices to private respondents are hereby dispensed with as this order may not cause any prejudice to private opposite parties.

The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that feeling aggrieved from the order of Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahabad dated 10.8.2022 a revision has been filed before the Additional Commissioner, Judicial -Ist, Lucknow and the revisional court vide order dated 8.12.2022 admitted such revision issuing notice to opposite parties fixing the date for hearing but no protection in respect of the property in question has been given, however, it was incumbent upon the court concerned in view of the judgment in re: Mool Chand Yadav and another vs. Raja Buland Sugar Company, 1982 1 SCC 484. In the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has observed that during the judicial proceedings at least some protection should be given for the subject matter / property in question otherwise the purpose of admitting such proceedings would be frustrated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the memo of the revision (Annexure no. 4) wherein he has specifically prayed that during the pendency of the revision the operation of the impugned order dated 10.8.2022 may be stayed. However, the learned revisional court has not considered such application inasmuch as neither such application has been accepted nor rejected vide impugned order dated 8.12.2022.

Learned Standing Counsel has, however, tried to defend the order dated 8.12.2022 but could not dispute the law settled by the Apex Court in re: Mool Chand Yadav (supra).

Considering the aforesaid facts and the law settled by the Apex Court in re: Mool Chand Yadav (supra), I do not find any good ground to keep this petition pending any longer. Therefore, I hereby dispose of this petition finally directing the revisional authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, Judicial-Ist to consider and dispose of the interim relief application of the petitioner which was filed along with revision within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

Till the disposal of aforesaid interim relief application or the period of three weeks, whichever is earlier the status quo as on today in respect of the property in question relating to the petitioner shall be maintained.

However, it is made clear that if the copy of this order is not produced before the revisional court by the petitioner within a period of three days and he does not press his interim relief application by filing a fresh application for interim relief the benefit of this order shall not be made available to the petitioner.

The copy of this order shall be issued to the petitioner within 48 hours on making payment of usual expenses.

.

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

Order Date :- 16.3.2023

Om