Allahabad High Court
Raj Bahadur vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil ... on 27 September, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:62762
Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4833 of 2023
Petitioner :- Raj Bahadur
Respondent :- Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Bhiti, Ambedkar Nagar And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard.
In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents is dispensed with.
Present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-
"(i) Issue an, order or direction granting an interim relief to the petitioner restraining the private opposite parties from alienating the property in dispute during the pendency of appeal No-T202304040502452 before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, in the interest of justice.
(II) Issue an order or direction to the opposite party No.- 1 directing him to not to fail to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to pass an appropriate interim order during pendency of appeal under section 35(2) of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006, In view of established principle of law propounded in case of Mool chand Yadav and another versus Raza Buland Sugar company and others Reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484, during the pendency of appeal before him."
Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority namely respondent no.1/ Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Bhiti, District Ambedkar Nagar, entertained the appeal in issue i.e. Appeal No-T202304040502452(Raj Bahadur Versus Sanjay and Others), vide order dated 14.08.2023, however, interim protection with regard to the property in issue under appeal, has not been provided to the petitioner though as per 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), during pendency of the appeal/revision having serious consequences the interim protection should be provided.
Further submitted that the concerned opposite party has already sold out some portion of the property in issue i.e. about 0.063 Hectare out of 0.093 Hectare.
He further submitted that the authority who can pass the final order can also pass interim order. Reference 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, without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of finally with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider the interim relief sought by way of an application inAppeal No-T202304040502452(Raj Bahadur Versus Sanjay and Others), on the next date fixed as per law including paragraph 489 of U.P. Revenue Code Manual, as per which an ex-parte interim protection can be granted and in case, the interim relief application is not disposed on the next fixed then in that eventuality the same shall be decided expeditiously say within a period of one month thereafter affording affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
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.
Order Date :- 27.9.2023
Jyoti/-
