Allahabad High Court
Murlidhar Alias Murli vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64547
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8573 of 2023
Petitioner :- Murlidhar Alias Murli
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And 11 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Vikram Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Raghvendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Kumar Maurya, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondents is hereby dispensed with.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following main reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya (Respondent No. 2) in Appeal No. 615 of 2023 (Murlidhar alias Murli versus Dharmendra Kumar Mishra and others) under section 24(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure No.13 to the writ petition).
(ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 14.12.2019 and 21.02.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Amethi, District Amethi (Respondent No. 3) in Case No. 03693 of 2019 (Dharmendra Kumar Mishra and others versus Rakesh and others) under section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 along with the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case (Annexure Nos. 8 and 11 to the writ petition).
(iii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Prohibition restraining the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Amethi, District Amethi (Respondent No. 4) not to pass any order on the basis of the impugned orders dated 14.12.2019 and 21.02.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Amethi, District Amethi (Respondent No. 3) in Case No. 03693 of 2019 (Dharmendra Kumar Mishra and others versus Rakesh and others) under section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006."
From the averments made in the present petition as also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the present petition has been filed only seeking interim protection with regard to the order dated 14.12.2019 passed in Case No. 03693 of 2019, Computerized Case No. T201904710503693 (Dharmendra Kumar Mishra and others vs. Rakesh and others) instituted under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") for demarcation of Gata No. 87/0.0310 hectare situated at Village Rebha, Pargana and Tehsil Amethi, District Amethi.
It further transpires from the record that the petitioner has already assailed the order dated 14.12.2019 by way of an appeal.
The petition preferred only for obtaining/seeking interim protection is not maintainable. On being confronted in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter at some length, submitted that justice would suffice if a direction is issued to the Appellate Authority to consider the application for interim relief filed alongwith appeal, which is pending as Case No. 615/2023, Computerized Case No. C202304000000615 (Murlidhar Alias Murli vs. Dharmendra Kumar Mishra and others), under Section 24(4) of the Code of 2006, which has already been admitted vide order dated 20.06.2023 (Annexure No. 13 to this petition).
He further stated that it is settled principle of law that the Appellate Authority should provide the interim protection if the appeal is admitted. Reference in this regard has been made on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav & Another vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Ltd., Rampur and Others, (1982) 3 SCC 484 and the judgment passed by this Court in Writ- C No. 5923 of 2021 (Maheshwar Pratap Shahi vs. State of U.P. & 5 Others) and in Writ- A No.3095 of 2022 (Rakesh Rathor vs. Gajanand Maheshwari).
Further submission is that the authority who can pass the final order can also pass interim order. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Bhalotia vs. State of U.P. reported in 2000 (18) LCD 532. Relevant paras of the same read as under:-
"17. In the end we would also like to point out that if the State Government entertains a revision against an order granting permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act at the instance of a third party who is a person aggrieved it will also have power to pass interim order like stay of the operation of the order of the Vice-Chairman or staying further construction or development. In Income Tax Officer v. Mah Knnhi [ AIR 1969 SC 430.] , the Supreme Court while considering the powers conferred on Income Tax Appellate Triinterim bunal by Sections 254 and 255 of Income Tax Act observed as under:?
"It is a firmly established rule that an express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. When Section 254 confers appellate jurisdiction it impliedly grants the power of doing all such acts or employing such means as are essentially necessary to its execution and that the statutory power carries with it the duty in proper cases to make such orders for staying proceedings as will prevent the appeal, if successful, from being rendered nugatory."
18. The law is well settled that every Tribunal has ancillary power to grant interim orders in order to carry out effectively the statutory duty cast upon it. If a proper case it made out, it will be open to the State Government to stay the order granting permission or to stop construction or development work otherwise it may lead to complication in the event the order granting permission is set aside or revoked."
The Principle settled in the aforesaid judgments has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the side opposite.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Authority concerned to consider the interim relief application filed alongwithCase No. 615/2023, Computerized Case No. C202304000000615 (Murlidhar Alias Murli vs. Dharmendra Kumar Mishra and others) within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order as per law including paragraph 489 of U.P. Revenue Code Manual, as per which, an ex-parte interim protection can be granted.
It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of finally in above terms.
Order Date :- 6.10.2023/Arun/-
