Allowed

Dharmendra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2021WRIC/25127/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the appellate authority's failure to decide the interim application renders the remedy illusory. Issued a writ of mandamus directing the authority to decide the appeal within six months, maintain status quo, and provide a hearing, while the petitioner must cooperate without unnecessary delays.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal within six months, maintain status quo, and provide hearing.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25127 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Dharmendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh K. Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The petitioner carried the order passed by the authority of first instance passed in purported exercise of power under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in appeal. The memo of appeal filed by the petitioner along with the application for interim relief came to be registered as Computerized Appeal No. D202105440000967/19721.

¶6

Sri Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appellate authority has not decided the application for interim relief. The appeal is still pending. However the respondents are threatening to demolish the house of the petitioner which was erected on the disputed parcel of land.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for gaon sabha submit that the authorities are under obligation of law to decide the appeal as well as interim application within a reasonable period of time. However the appellant should cooperate in the proceedings before the court below.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

Failure of the appellate authority to decide the application for interim relief would render the remedy of appeal illusory in case the house of the petitioner is demolished during the pendency of the appeal.

¶10

Till the decision of the appeal status quo in regard to disputed properties shall be maintained by the parties.

¶11

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the appellate authority to execute the following directions:

¶12

(I) The appellate authority shall decide the Computerized Appeal No. D202105440000967/19721 under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within six months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the website of High Court, Allahabad. The 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.

¶13

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

¶14

(III) The petitioner shall cooperate in the proceedings before the court below and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

¶15

(IV) In case the court below finds that the petitioner is deliberately delaying the proceedings, this protection shall stand vacated upon application made by the State authority.

¶16

(V) The court below shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated time line of six months for deciding the case is strictly adhered to.

¶17

It is clarified that this Court has not entered into merits of the controversy. It is for the appellate authority to decide the issue after independent application of mind and in accordance with law.

¶18

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.10.2021/Nadeem

Dharmendra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhairo Pratap Singh and 7 Others Vs Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits Prayagraj and 3 Others

C/M, Gopi Nath Vidhi Mahavdhyalaya and Another Vs Bar Council of India and Another

Smt. Komal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Surya Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhure Lal @ Bhure Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others