Allahabad High Court
Harendra Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 5 May, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1755 of 2023
Petitioner :- Harendra Singh And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Mishra,Abhishek Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondent.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.3.2023, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.210/2022.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the title proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act has been initiated against the basic year entry, which has been decided by the Consolidation Officer on 18.2.2019. It is further submitted that against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 18.2.2019, several appeals were filed under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act which has been decided arbitrarily by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), affecting the interest of the petitioners, vide order dated 16.4.2022. He submitted that against the order dated 16.4.2022, petitioners filed revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act along with stay application dated 13.5.2022. The revision of the petitioners has been numbered as Revision No.210/2022. He submitted that in the stay application, specific prayer has been made that the operation of the order of the appellate court dated 16.4.2022 be stayed till the disposal of the revision. He also submitted that several other revisions were also filed against the appellate order and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while passing the impugned order dated 29.3.2023 has ordered that the proceeding for demarcation of the chak may go on but the delivery of possession shall not take place. He submitted that petitioners' stay application be considered and disposed of separately in the light of the prayer made in the application in respect of his pending title revision.
4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that the revision is pending before the revisional court, as such, petitioners should approach the revisional court for the necessary relief. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. Since the title revision has been filed by the petitioners along with stay application, as such, petitioners' stay application should be considered in the light of the pending proceeding as well as prayer made in the stay application.
7. A perusal of the aformentioned order passed by the revisional court during the pendency of the revision demonstrates that the order has been passed in several revisions, without considering the fact that the matter relates to title, as such, the interim order be passed in the interest of justice so that claim of the parties may not be affected or tenure holder may not be harassed during the pendency of the proceeding.
8. This Court in the case of Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector, Bijnor and Others, reported in 2007 (102) RD 498 has held that the interim protection be granted during pendency of appeal / revision if the order under appeal and revision has serious civil consequences. Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the judgment is relevant which is as follows:
"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."
8. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the ratio of law laid down in Ali Sher (supra), the instant petition is finally disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The interim order dated 29.3.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut is modified in respect to Revision No.210/2022 filed by the petitioners to the extent that the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature and possession of the plot in dispute and no demarcation will take place till the pendency of the title revision by revisional court;
(ii) The Court shall decide the Revision No.210/2022 on merit, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, expeditiously, within a period of 4 months.
(iii) Since this Court has passed this order without hearing the private parties, as such, if private respondent will have any grievance, then they can file an appropriate application before this Court.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.5.2023
C.Prakash
