Dismissed

Mantora Devi v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023WRIC/31107/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, via writ petition, addressed the rejection of an interim stay application in a land dispute revision. The Court relied on precedent to grant interim protection, directing the Additional Commissioner to decide the pending revision expeditiously within six months while maintaining the status quo regarding land possession.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Additional Commissioner to decide the pending revision within six months and continuing interim protection to maintain status quo.

Mantora Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155597

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31107 of 2012

¶4

Petitioner :- Mantora Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Trivedi,Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 16.06.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Varanasi Devision Varanasi by which the application for grant of interim protection was rejected.

¶8

Facts in brief as contained in the petition are the petitioner was granted patta by the Gaon Sabha on 25.04.1986. Thereafter the name of the petitioner was recorded in the Revenue Records. One Baliraj and others illegally encroached the aforesaid land and forcibly taken the possession of the same. In this regard, a complaint was filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid persons and the charge-sheet has also filed in the matter.

¶9

Baliraj also instituted a case for cancellation of the patta against the petitioner under Sub Section 4 of Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act which was numbered as Case No.3 filed in the year 2012. In the aforesaid case, an order was passed against the petitioner by the Additional District Magistrate (Land & Revenue) Jaunpur on 22.05.2012 by which patta granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Aggrieved against the aforesaid revision No.135 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner. Along with the aforesaid revision, an interim application was also filed which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) First Varanasi Division Varanasi vide order dated 16.06.2012. Hence the present petition was filed and the same is duly entertained and following interim order was granted in favour

¶10

of the petitioner on 28.06.2012:-

¶11

It is contended that while passing the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner (respondent No.3) has committed manifest error of law, as on the one hand, he has admitted the revision filed by the petitioner, on the other hand, he has rejected the stay application. In the submissions of Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav & Ors. Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited & Ors., 1982 SCC (3) 484, if the revision/appeal is admitted and the order impugned leads to civil consequence, the Court should grant interim protection pending appeal/revision.

¶12

Here, in this case, the revisional court has rejected the stay application after admitting the revision. In the submissions of Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the valid lease granted in the year 1986, the petitioner is continuing in possession over the land in dispute. On the one occasion, the respondent No. 4 has been punished for transgressing over the lease land occupied by the petitioner. The filing of an application under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is after thought. In his submissions, if this order is allowed to sustain, the consequence would be, the eviction of the petitioner and that would lead to irreparable loss to the petitioner.

¶13

The matter requires scrutiny.

¶14

Issue notice.

¶15

Notices on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 have been received by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Vijai Tripathi, holding brief of Shri M.N. Singh has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 5. Therefore, notices need not be served to respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 again.

¶16

Issue notice to respondent No. 4 through Registered Post returnable at an early date.

¶17

Step be taken within a week.

¶18

List this case on the date fixed by the office in the notice. Counter affidavit may be filed by the respondents by the next date fixed. In the meantime, status quo as on date with respect to nature and possession over the land in dispute, shall be maintained till the next date of listing.

¶19

Though in the year 2012, time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the Gaon Sabha to file counter affidavit but till date no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶20

In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that more than 11 years have been lapsed and till date no counter affidavit has been filed and the justice would be served if the controversy involved in the petition be decided on the basis of the material available on record.

¶21

From perusal of the record, it is clear that against the order dated 22.05.2012

¶22

passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land & Revenue) Jaunpur, a statutory revision was filed which is admitted and the same is still pending. It is settled law that once revision was filed, the Court should grant interim order but the Court below refused to grant the same vide its order dated 16.06.2012. Against the aforesaid order, present petition filed which was duly entertained by this Court and interim protection was granted by this Court vide order dated 28.06.2012 to maintain status quo as on date in respect of the nature of the possession over the land in dispute.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties,the present petition is disposed of directing the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Varanasi Division Varanasi to decide the aforesaid revision most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from today.

¶25

Till the time, revision will decide, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 28.06.2012 shall continue.

¶26

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate a copy of this order to Commissioner Varanasi Division Varanasi who will serve the copy of this order upon the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Varanasi Division Varanasi or the Court before whom the matter is pending.

¶27

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 saqlain

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mantora Devi v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantora Devi v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Shahid Alias Ajju Vs Mohammad Ehtesham and 2 Others

Shivbachan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aviral Maheswari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Thukral Vs Sanjeev Kumar Jain

Wazid and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another