Allowed

Nath Saran Verma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2021WRIC/22948/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued mandamus directing the appellate authority to decide a pending appeal regarding land eviction and damages within three months. Directions were issued for status quo, strict timelines, hearing opportunities, and cost penalties for adjournments to prevent recovery without judicial finality.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued directing appellate authority to decide the appeal within 3 months, maintain status quo, and adhere to strict timelines with cost penalties for adjournments.

Nath Saran Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22948 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Nath Saran Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar,Navendu Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Navendu Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent.

¶7

Shri Navendu Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner appealed the order passed by the trial court in proceedings taken out under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950, imposing damages and directing his eviction from the disputed parcels of land. The appeal was registered as Appeal No. 195 of 2020, Nath Saran Vs. Gram Panchayatm, Bhathat. The memo of appeal was accompanied by an application for interim relief.

¶8

The contention of Shri Navendu Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither the appeal is still pending but no decision has been taken by the appellate authority on the application for interim relief. However, the authorities below are pressing the recovery proceedings against the petitioner.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of records could not dispute the fact that the application for interim relief has not been decided by the appellate authority. He, however, in

¶10

his usual fairness submits that the appellate authority is under an obligation of law to decide the appeal and the interim relief application within a reasonable period of time.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Remedy of appeal will become illusory in case the recovery is effected against the petitioner without a decision on the application for interim relief and the appeal remains pending.

¶13

In wake of the preceding discussion, no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶14

The matter is remitted to the appellate authority/respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Gorakhpur.

¶15

To show the bonafides, the petitioner through his counsel undertakes before this Court that he shall cooperate with the proceedings before the court below and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment in the said proceedings.

¶16

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the appellate authority/respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, to execute the following directions:

¶17

I. The appellate authority/respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, shall decide the appeal, registered as Appeal No. 195 of 2020, Nath Saran Vs. Gram Panchayat, Bhathat, within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High

¶18

Court Allahabad. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

II. All parties to the lis shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed.

¶20

III. All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceeding before the appellate authority/respondent no.2District Magistrate, Gorakhpur.

¶21

IV. In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the appellate authority/respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, or adopts dilatory tactics, the appellate authority/respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶22

V. The appellate authority/respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶23

VI. In case an adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the appellate authority/respondent no.2District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, shall impose costs not below Rs.1000/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking such adjournment.

¶24

VII. If necessary, the appellate authority/respondent no.2District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, shall proceed with the hearing on a day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline is strictly adhered to.

¶25

VIII. Parties to maintain status quo till the final decision of

¶26

the appeal.

¶27

It is clarified that the appeal shall be decided by the appellate authority upon independent application of mind and in accordance with law by a reasoned and a speaking order and without being influenced by the interim protection granted by this order till the final decision of the appeal.

¶28

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶29

Order Date :- 16.9.2021 Dhananjai

Nath Saran Verma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nath Saran Verma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pachchu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Sushila Devi @ Sushila Singh Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma and 2 Others Vs the General Manager, Food Corporation of India and 2 Others

Ajad Khan Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Reeta Vs the State of U P and 4 Others

Rajesh Ramsukh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others