Allahabad High Court
Asha Devi And 3 Others vs The Board Of Revenue Up At Prayagraj And ... on 17 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89337
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2120 of 2024
Petitioner :- Asha Devi And 3 Others
Respondent :- The Board Of Revenue Up At Prayagraj And 21 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Kulshreshtha,Umang Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Janardan Mishra,Satyavrat Sahai
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned judgment and order dated:22.04.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 1158 of 2024 (Computerized Case no. AL20240203001158), Mst. Asha Devi and others Vs Suresh Pal and others and the order dated: 11.03.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Appeal no. 408/20204 (Computerized Case no. D202402000000408), Mst. Asha Devi and others Vs. Suresh Pal and others to the extent of rejecting the stay application of the petitioners filed in the appeal, which is still pending.
(ii) Isuue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from transferring, alienating or changing the nature of the land in dispute the Appeal no. 408/20204 (Computerized Case no. D202402000000408), Mst. Asha Devi and others Vs. Suresh Pal and others before the respondent no. 2."
3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit instituted under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by the plaintiff-petitioners was dismissed. Against the judgment and decree passed in suit, the petitioners preferred first appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, Prayagraj Division has admitted the appeal by order dated 11.03.2024 but has rejected the application for interim relief. Against the said order rejecting the application for interim relief, the petitioners filed a revision and same has also been dismissed.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited reported in 1982 (3) SCC page No. 484 and in several other judgments passed by this Court, once an appeal is admitted, the operation of impugned order must be stayed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that this is second round of litigation where the relief has been denied to the petitioners. It has also been contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the petitioners have no prima facie title. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that a civil suit has been filed, which has been concealed in the present petition.
6. Be that as it may, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending.
7. As the respondents in the first appeal has already appeared before the first appellate court, it will be in the interest of justice that respondent no. 1- The Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj decide the first appeal within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided there is no other legal impediment.
8. For a period of four months, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo.
9. With these observations, present writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
Nitika Sri.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
