Govind And 14 Others vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 54 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Govind And 14 Others vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others on 1 April, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44790
 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5842 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Govind And 14 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shalvin
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
 

1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the array of parties during the course of the day.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. This writ petition has been filed for following relief:-

"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 and 4 not to dispossess the petitioners from land in dispute during pendency of Appeal No. 173 of 2025( Bhagwati and others. Vs. Rishipal and others).

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to maintain status quo untill disposal of interim application filed alongwith appeal No. 173 of 2025 (Bhagwati and others. Vs. Rishipal and others)"

4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a suit under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been decreed by the court below, against which the petitioners have filed an appeal, which has been admitted by lower appellate court, but no order has been passed by the appellate court on the application for interim relief. Since the proceedings under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 are the proceedings for eviction and appeal against the decree has been entertained and admitted by the court below, in view of 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, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the lower appellate court has erred in law in rejecting the stay application.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending and a direction be issued to the appellate Court i.e. respondent no.2 to decide the appeal as well as the stay application in a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

6. In view of these facts, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2- Addl. Commissioner- II, Meerut Division, Meerut to consider and decide the stay application filed by the petitioners in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is expected that the appeal itself be decided within a period of six months, thereafter after ensuring service of notice upon all the respondents and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned provided that there is no other legal impediment.

7. Till disposal of stay application, parties are directed to maintain status quo.

8. However, it is provided that the petitioners will not seek any adjournment and in case, the adjournments are sought by the petitioners, the interim order granted by this Court shall automatically be vacated.

Order Date :- 1.4.2025

S. Singh

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)