Smt. Baikunthi Devi vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 148 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Baikunthi Devi vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 1 April, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44229
 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9403 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Baikunthi Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sher Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C.
 

 
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 relief:-

''A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 5 to maintains the status quo in respect of Gata no.20, mauja Gajraura Tahsil Vah District Agra till the final decision of appeal no. 227/2025, computer no. C 202501000000227 (Smt. Vakunthi Devi Versus Teekam Singh etc.) pending in the court of Upper Commissioner Agra Mandal Agra. Tahsil Vah.

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 5 Teekam Singh by restraining him to sale the disputed land of Kurra to any third party till the final decision of appeal pending in the court of Respondent no.2.

C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide the appeal no. 227/2025 (computer case no. 202501000000227) Smt. Bakunthi Devi Versus Teekam C Singh etc) within the time of 3 months in the interest of justice."

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been decreed by the court below, against which the petitioner has filed an appeal, which has been admitted by the appellate court, but the application for interim relief has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited reported in 1982 (3) SCC page No. 484 and in view of judgment in case of Maheshwar Pratap Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others in Writ B No. 412 of 2020 dated 13.02.2020 and contended that the lower appellate court has erred in law in rejecting the stay application.

4. No useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending.

5. The appellate court i.e. respondent no. 3 is directed to consider and decide the appeal in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six 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.

6. It is further provided that till the disposal of the appeal, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. However, it is provided that in case, the petitioner, seeks adjournment in the appeal, the interim relief granted by this Court, shall automatically vacated.

7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 1.4.2025

Ved Prakash

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)