Allahabad High Court
Ms Saman Fatima Alias Rukhsana vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 1 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:17843
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 302 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ms Saman Fatima Alias Rukhsana
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief :-
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the Respondents (especially Respondent no.2) may be directed to decide the Case No.REV/3573/2023/Kushinagar Computerized No.R20230544003573) (Saman Fatma alias Rukhsana vs.Sulochana Devi) as early as possible without granting any adjournment to the respondents and further interdict the respondents from interfering in to peaceful possession of the petitioner's over the land in dispute until disposal Case No.Case No.REV/3573/2023/Kushinagar Computerized No.R20230544003573).
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's father was ordered to be recorded over the plot in question, vide order dated 07.04.2021, in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. He further submitted that after death of the father, the petitioner was ordered to be recorded on the basis of registered will-deed executed by the father in favour of petitioner in the proceeding under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, vide order dated 03.09.2021. He further submitted that after passing of the order dated 03.09.2021, the State and private respondents initiated proceeding in order to harass the petitioner. He further submitted that earlier proceeding initiated by the respondents were decided in favour of the petitioner, but under the order dated 01.12.2023, the petitioner's entry has been expunged and the plot in question has been ordered to be recorded as banjar. He further submitted that the petitioner challenged the order dated 01.12.2023 in revision before the Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow being Revision No.3573 of 2023 along with the prayer for interim relief as the respondents are threatening to interfere with the right, title and possession of the petitioner. He further submitted that revision has been admitted on 2.1.2024 but prayer for interim relief was not considered hence appropriate direction be issued for expeditious disposal of the pending revision and till the disposal of the revision, interim protection be granted in faovur of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents, submitted that the revision filed by the petitioner along with stay application is pending before the respondent no.2, as such, the petitioner should appear in the pending proceeding before the respondent no.2 rather writ petition before this Court. He further submitted that no interference is required in the matter arising out of summary proceedings.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that revision filed by the petitioner under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 is pending before the respondent no.2 along with the prayer for interim relief.
7. This Court in the case of Alisher versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2007 (102) RD 498 has held that if order under appeal or revision has serious civil consequences then operation of the order under appeal/revision must be suspended. The relevant paragraph nos.4 and 5 of the aforementioned judgment rendered in Alisher (supra) are 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. Considering the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Alisher (supra) as well as the other facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to decide the Revision No.3573 of 2023, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
9. It is further submitted that till the disposal of the petitioner's Revision No.3573 of 2023, the effect and operation of the order dated 01.12.2023, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in the proceeding, under Section 38 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, shall remain in abeyance.
Order Date :- 1.2.2024
m.a.
