Allahabad High Court
Chiranjeev And 9 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 16 May, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106142
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1908 of 2023
Petitioner :- Chiranjeev And 9 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Utsav,Maithali Sharan Pipersenia
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri Mathali Sharan Pipersenia, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the state-respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent no.4/Gaon Sabha.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.11.2022, passed by respondent no.3 in proceeding under Rule 109-A of the U.P. C.H. Rules as well as for interim protection with respect to dispossession of the petitioners. It is also prayed that respondent no.2 be directed to decide the pending Appeal No.0115 of 2023 (Chiranjeev and Others vs. Gaon Sabha and Others), filed by the petitioners under Rule 109-A(3) of the U.P. C.H. Rules, within the stipulated period.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceeding under Rule 109-A of the U.P. C.H. Rules was decided in violation of principles of natural justice. He also submitted that the order under Rule 109-A of the U.P. C.H. Rules has been passed without notice/opportunity to the petitioner as mentioned in the order itself. Counsel for the petitioners further placed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in order to demonstrate that no notice/opportunity was afforded to the petitioners. It is further submitted that against the ex parte order passed by the Consolidation Officer, petitioners filed an appeal under Rule 109-A(3) of the U.P. C.H. Rules which is pending. It is also submitted that the authorities are taking steps to dispossess the petitioners on the basis of ex parte order passed by the Consolidation Officer, as such, the impugned order be set aside. He also placed reliance on a decision 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 and revision has serious civil consequences.
4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioners is pending, as such, petitioners can approach the appellate court for redressal of their grievance. He also submitted that no interference is required at this stage of the proceeding.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioners under Rule 109-A(3) of the U.P. C.H. Rules is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. There is also no dispute about the fact that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 5.11.2022 is an ex parte order.
7. This Court in Ali Sher (supra) has held that 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. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of the ratio of law laid down in Ali Sher (supra), without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2/Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the Appeal No.0115/2023, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, in accordance with law.
9. It is further directed that till the disposal of the appeal, the effect and operation of the order dated 5.11.2022, passed by the Consolidation Officer in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of the U.P. C.H. Rules shall remained stayed.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023
C.Prakash
