Allahabad High Court
Sheshnath Singh vs State Of U.P. And 17 Others on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1036 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sheshnath Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 17 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sujeet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Rakesh Pathak,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. Respondent no.18 is represented by Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel.
2. In view of the office report dated 24.11.2022, notices on the respondent nos.4 to 17 are deemed sufficient.
3. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(I) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.3.2020 passed by Sub Divisional Officer Jamaniya Distt. Ghazipur (annexure no.4 to this writ petition).
(II) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2, Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad to decide the Revision of the petitioner/revisionist bearing Revision no.18 of 2014-15 (Sheshnath Singh Vs. Jangbahadur and others) pending before Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad expeditiously if possible within stipulated period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
4. It is stated by the petitioner that against the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, a revision bearing No.18 of 2014-15 (Sheshnath Singh Vs. Jangbahadur and others) was filed before the Board of Revenue, which is pending. It is stated that an interim order was passed directing that the order of the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division dated 12.12.2014 be stayed. The petitioner has not filed a copy of the order dated 12.12.2014 but the same has been filed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondents. By means of that order dated 12.12.2014, directions were issued fixing the shares of the petitioner and others. It is admitted to the petitioner that on the date of passing of the order dated 13.03.2020, no interim order was in operation and, therefore, the order dated 13.03.2020, which is, as a matter of fact, a final order in proceedings under Section176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was passed. Admittedly, against the aforesaid impugned order, an appeal lies before the authority concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Fazalullah Khan vs. M. Akbar Contractor and others reported in 2019 (8) ADJ 615 (SC) and has relied upon paragraph 5 of the same to contend that the interim order passed by the Board of Revenue would continue to remain in operation till the disposal of the case.
6. A perusal of the judgment in Fazalullah Khan (supra) reveals that the contention in this regard by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. In that case, the Supreme Court had observed that the revisional court, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299, in the eviction proceedings against the appellant as a tenant, sought to proceed on the basis of a submission of the respondents that on expiry of the period of six months, the interim stay granted by the Supreme Court would not operate. Therefore, the Supreme Court observed that such a course of action is not permissible and if the interim order granted by the Supreme Court is not vacated and continues beyond a period of six months by reason of pendency of the appeal, it could not be said that the interim order would automatically stand vacated.
7. The judgment in Asian Resurfacing (supra) is law of the land and is binding on the High Courts as well as on all civil and criminal courts. The fact that on the date of passing of the order dated 13.03.2020, no interim order of the Board was in operation, is not denied.
8. There is no merit in the writ petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy of appeal against the order dated 13.03.2020, if he is so advised.
Order Date :- 2.5.2023
SK
(Jayant Banerji, J.)
