Disposed

Pagga v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial-Ii Lko and Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2022/697/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a status quo order due to sugarcane deterioration. Noting the order was interlocutory and a modification application was already pending before the respondent, the court directed the respondent to decide that pending application within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to dispose of the pending application dated 26.10.2021 within 30 days providing opportunity of being heard.

Pagga Vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial-Ii Lko and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 31

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 697 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Pagga Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Judicial-Ii Lko And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deo Prakash Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by opposite party no.1 in Case No.1024 of 2021 Jagdutta Vs. Pagga and others under Section 207 of Land Revenue Act, 2006 same are contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition and further to command the opposite party no.1 to decide Case No. 1024 of 2021 Jagdutta Vs. Pagga and others under Section 207 of Land Revenue Act-2006, expeditiously.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of the S.D.O. dated 12.7.2021 the respondent no.3 has filed an appeal before the opposite party no.1 and by passing an order of date 17.1.2021 in Appeal No.1024 of 2021 the parties have been directed to maintain the status quo on the disputed land.

¶8

It is further submitted that since the crop of sugarcane is standing on the portion of the land which has been allotted to the petitioner, by virtue of the order of subordinate court the petitioner is not able to reap the crop and the sugarcane standing on his part of the land is deteriorating, causing prejudice and serious financial loss to the petitioner.

¶9

It is vehemently submitted that the order passed by the opposite party no.1 is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 vehemently submits that the order dated 17.08.2021, which has been challenged by filing instant petition is interlocutory order, which could be set aside or modified by the lower appellate court and therefore there was no occasion for the petitioner to approach this Court without filing any appropriate application before the appellate court i.e. Additional Commissioner, (Judicial-II), Lucknow, for codification of the order.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired from the record that the grievance of the petitioner is only to the tune that crop of sugarcane is standing on his portion of the land and he is not in a position to cut the same in view of the impugned order dated 17.8.2021 passed by the opposite party no.1. There cannot be any doubt that the impugned order dated 17.8.2021 is purely interlocutory order and the same could be set aside or modified by the Court. It has been brought in the knowledge of this Court that an application pertaining to the modification of the above mentioned order has already been moved by the petitioner before the opposite party no.1 and the same is still pending and has not been disposed of.

¶12

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is finally disposed of with a direction to the opposite party no.1 to dispose of the application dated 26.10.2021 which has been allegedly moved by the petitioner before him, within 30 days from today, from the date an authenticated copy of this order is produced before the opposite party no.1, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.2.2022 Muk

¶14

Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.02.10 11:44:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pagga v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial-Ii Lko and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pagga v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial-Ii Lko and 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

Dinesh Vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial ) Ayodhya Mandal and 4 Others

Ajimullah Vs Additional Commissioner Consolidation Lko. and Others

Subedar and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,Gonda and Others

Shahjahan Bano Vs Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Sadar,Gonda and Another

Vikas Soni Vs State of U.P.Thru.Addl. Chief Secy Revenue Lko and Others

Sursati Devi Vs Tehsildar,Teh.Beekapur Distt.Ayodhya and Another