Allahabad High Court
Junior High School, Mashida vs State Of U.P. And 10 Others on 22 March, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 775 of 2023
Petitioner :- Junior High School, Mashida
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi,Praveen Chandra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Diwakar Mishra
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pushpendra Mishra, holding the brief of Sri Diwakar Sharma, for respondent no.6 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondent.
With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.
The instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.2.2023 passed by respondent no.3/Settlement Officer (Consolidation), vacating the interim order during the pendency of the appeal.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the title appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Consolidation Officer, initially an interim order for maintaining status quo was granted by the appellate court but later on the order was vacated. He further submitted that the contesting respondents have also filed a revision against the order granting status quo in favour of the petitioner which is still pending before the revisional court. He further submitted that appellate court without notice to petitioner, vacated the interim order granted in appeal on 30.11.2022 hence Writ B No.3669/2022 has been filed by the petitioner before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 6.1.2023, setting aside the order dated 30.11.2022, passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and sending the matter back before the appellate court to decide the stay vacation application afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing. He also submitted that after an order was passed by this Court, the appellate court has again passed an order in arbitrary manner, vacating the interim protection granted during the pendency of the appeal, without considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner in the matter. Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 2007 (102) RD 498, Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector, Bijnor and Others in order to demonstrate that the interim protection be granted during pendency of appeal / revision if the order under appeal / revision has serious civil consequences.
On the other hand, Sri Pushpendra Mishra, Advocate for respondent no.6 submitted that the order passed by the appellate court does not require any interference as the same is interlocutory in nature. He further submitted that petitioner is not entitled to any interim protection as the petitioner has no case on merit. He further submitted that in pursuance of the earlier order of this court dated 6.1.2023, impugned order has been passed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
There is no dispute about the fact that the title appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the appellate court and the impugned order granted for maintaining status quo, has been vacated by the impugned order.
This Court has considered the matter regarding grant of interim protection in the case of Ali Sher (supra). Paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the judgment read as under:-
"4. 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."
5. 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."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Ali Sher (supra), the impugned order dated 15.2.2023 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The respondent no.3/Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is directed to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. For a period of 3 months, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to nature and possession of the plot in dispute.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023
C.Prakash
