Allahabad High Court
Ambika Prasad vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:115695
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2083 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ambika Prasad
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 9 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai,Pramod Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent-gaon sabha and the learned standing counsel for state-respondent.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, commanding respondent no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti to decide Revision No.496 (Computerized Case No.20225417140001413) (Ambika Prasad vs. Smt. Kailasha Devi and Others), within the stipulated time.
3. Counsel for the petitioner states that chak revision filed by the petitioner along with stay application is pending before respondent no.1. He further submitted that on the basis of stay application filed by the petitioner along with the revision, reports have been submitted by the authorities, which has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition, which indicates that valuable trees and boring, etc. are situated in the plot in dispute, as such, refusal of interim protection will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. It is further submitted that necessary direction be issued for expeditious disposal of the petitioner's revision and till the disposal of the revision, interim protection be granted in favour of the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel and the counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that petitioner's revision along with stay application is pending, as such, petitioner should approach the revisional court for redressal of his grievance, no interference is required in the matter.
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 chak revision filed by the petitioner along with the stay application is pending before respondent no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation. The authorities have submitted report in the revision to the effect that valuable trees and the boring, etc. are situated in the plot in dispute.
7. This Court in the case reported in 2007 (102) RD 498, Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector, Bijnor and Others 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. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the ratio of law laid down in the case of Ali Sher (supra) as well as in view of the reports submitted by the consolidation authorities, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.1 to decide the aforesaid revision, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 2 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, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and till the disposal of the revision, the status quo with respect to nature and possession of the plot in dispute be maintained by the parties to the dispute.
9. Since the private parties have not been heard before passing this order, they will have liberty to file a recall application, in case they have any grievance against the instant order.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
C.Prakash
