Allahabad High Court
Sanjai Singh @ Babloo Singh And ... vs State Of U.P. And 22 Others on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:115841
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2089 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sanjai Singh @ Babloo Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 22 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachida Nand Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Sudhir Bharti
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent no.6/Gaon Sabha and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondent.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, commanding respondent no.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur to decide Revision No.1228/2023 and 1229/2023 (Samarjeet and Others vs. State of U.P.) and Revision No.1253/2023 (Sanjay Singh vs. State of U.P.) along with stay applications dated 24.4.2023/6.5.2023, within the stipulated time and till the disposal of the revision, interim protection be granted.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the long standing entry of the petitioners has been expunged by the Consolidation Officer in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that appeal filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed without considering the case of the petitioners. He further placed grounds of revision as well as stay application filed by the petitioners against the order of the Consolidation Officer / Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Counsel for the petitioners further placed copy of the letter dated 26.4.2023 issued by the Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazar, Gorakhpur in order to demonstrate that the authorities are proceeding for demarcation of the plot in dispute which will cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance upon the judgment 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 and revision has serious civil consequences.
4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel and the counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that the revision along with stay application is pending at the revisional court, as such, petitioners should approach the revisional court for redressal of their grievance.
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 title revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. filed by the petitioners along with stay application is pending for consideration before the revisional court.
7. This Court in the case of Ali Sher (supra) has held as under in paragraph nos. 4 & 5 of the judgment:-
"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 and 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 to decide the aforesaid proceedings (Revision Nos. 1228/2023, 1229/2023 & 1253/2023), to its logical conclusion, 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 and till the disposal of the petitioner's revision, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to nature and possession of the plot in dispute.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
C.Prakash
