Allahabad High Court
Nirmala Devi vs Deputy Director Of ... on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 355 of 2023
Petitioner :- Nirmala Devi
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation/ Addil. District Magistrate (Judicial), Sitapur And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohan Singh,Pankaj Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite party no. 3 is hereby dispensed with.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 28.03.2023 and 20.01.2023 passed by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, as contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 to the writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus direction the opposite parties concerned not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question during pendency of the appeal pending before the opposite party no.2 and maintain status quo in respect of possession and maintenance of record, in the interest of justice."
At the very outset, Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Consolidation Officer under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, challenging the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the Consolidation Officer along with interim relief application. The Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 20.01.2023, rejected the interim relief application of the petitioner, restraining the opposite party for alienating the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has got possession over the property in question and in the garb of stay rejection order dated 20.01.2023, the opposite party may try to take possession of the property and if the possession of the property is taken from the petitioner, she shall suffer from the irreparable loss. He has further submitted that this is a settled law that if any statutory appeal is filed along with interim relief application, till the disposal of the statutory appeal, the interest of the party in respect of the property in question should be protected.
Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 48(1) of the Consolidation Act before the Revisional Authority i.e., Deputy Director of Consolidation, but the Revisional Authority rejected the revision of the petitioner upholding the order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Appellated authority for the reason that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 20.01.023. The Revisional Authority has also stated that the Appellate Authority has already protected the interest of the petitioner restraining the opposite party for alienating the property in question.
On that, Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that when the Revisional Authority has observed that the alienation of the property in question may not be made by the opposite party would mean that the opposite party may ask transfer of the possession and in that way the present petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the limited protection so given by the Appellate Authority would frustrate the very purpose of keeping the writ petition pending. He has further submitted that before the appellate authority both the parties are present therefore, the direction may be issued to expedite the appeal but till the disposal of appeal some protection may be given to the present petitioner in the light of the judgment of Apex Court Mool Chand Yadav and another versus Raza Buland Sugar Company Ltd., Rampur and others, 1982 (3) SCC 484.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record and without entering into the merits, I hereby dispose of this writ petition at the admission stage, directing the Appellate Authority i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sitapur, to decide the Appeal No. 202354106400000015 under Section 11 (1) C.H. Act (Nirmala Devi versus Kailash), strictly in accordance with law on merits by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned with expedition preferably within a period of six months from the date of production a certified copy of this order. The Appellate Authority shall fix short dates to ensure the final disposal of the petition. At the same time, the parties shall properly cooperate in the proceedings and shall not take unnecessary adjournments.
Since the direction has been issued to the Appellate Authority to expedite the proceedings of appeal therefore, the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Revisional Authority is hereby set aside so that the Appellate Authority could decide the appeal without being influenced from the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Revisional Authority.
Till the disposal of the aforesaid appeal, status quo as on today in respect of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties and no third party interest would be created in respect of the property in question.
In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 2.5.2023
Mohd. Sharif
