Allahabad High Court
Mewa Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34996
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4002 of 2024
Petitioner :- Mewa Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Lalendra Pratap Singh, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Mohan Singh, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Court of Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil-Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar-respondent no. 3 and the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the District Collector, District Ambedkar Nagar-respondent no. 2.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has not encroached over the land of Gata No. 2123 which is entered as Naveen Parti in the revenue records and it was through out his case before the respondent no. 3.
It is further submitted that the Paimaish report submitted before the respondent no. 3 was objected by the petitioner but the same was not considered. Against the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 passed in the proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, the Code, 2006), the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 67 (5) of the Code, 2006 alongwith the interim relief application. The interim relief application preferred by the petitioner alongwith the appeal has been rejected vide impugned order dated 23.02.2024 by the respondent no. 2 without assigning any reason and by passing non speaking order. The petitioner is apprehending that the recovery of Rs 13,38,750/- would be recovered from the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 during the pendency of the appeal before the respondent no. 2 and petitioner being a farmer is not in a position to make payment of amount as mentioned in the order passed by the respondent no. 3 particularly when he has not encroached the Naveen Parti land.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel representing the Gaon Sabha have submitted that usually no proceedings would be initiated for compliance of the order passed under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 till the appeal is pending.
It is further submitted that in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ C No. 6658 of 2022), this Court has directed to decide the appeal filed under Section 67 (5) of the Code, 2006 within a period of two months.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that if any proceedings are initiated for implementation of impugned order dated 31.1.2024 during the pendency of the appeal, petitioner would be at liberty to move an afresh application for interim relief. It is also prayed that respondent no. 2 may be directed to decide the appeal within a period as prescribed by this Court in the case of Rishipal (supra).
Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha concerned have no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that if any proceedings are initiated for implementation of impugned order dated 31.1.2024 during the pendency of the appeal, petitioner would be at liberty to move an afresh application for interim relief. It is also expected that respondent no. 2 may decide the appeal filed under Section 67(5) of the Code, 2006 within a period as provided in the judgment of this Court in the case of Rishipal (supra) after hearing all the parties concerned, in accordance with law and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
Ashish
