Safik Mohammad Vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

Safik Mohammad Vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the stay application before respondent no. 2; if such application is preferred, respondent no. 2 is expected to decide it expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the parties and without unnecessary adjournments, if there is no other legal impediment. No direction to decide on 26.11.2024 and no status quo order was granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no. 2 should be directed to decide the petitioner's stay application in Revision No. R202408000001828 (under Section 210, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) on the date fixed, i.e., 26.11.2024. +1 more

Court's answer

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, and without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the stay application before respondent no. 2.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner prefers such an urgency application, it is expected that respondent no. 2 shall decide it expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

Key takeaways

The decision on the urgency application is to be made without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 petition (MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 5407 of 2024, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Manish Kumar J.) by Safik Mohammad seeking a direction to respondent no. 2 to decide his stay application in Revision No. R202408000001828 under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ('Safik Mohammad vs. Hukumchand and Ors.') on the date fixed, i.e., 26.11.2024, with interim status quo, alleging that the respondents in the revision were raising construction altering the nature of the property. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed no urgency/early-disposal application before the court below and had approached the High Court directly. Without entering into the merits, and on counsel's request, the petition was disposed of with liberty to move an urgency application before respondent no. 2; if preferred, respondent no. 2 is expected to decide it expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the parties, without unnecessary adjournments, if there is no other legal impediment. Order dated 21.11.2024.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76845

Court No. - 17

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5407 of 2024

Petitioner :- Safik Mohammad Respondent :- Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Adnan Ahmad, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 7 is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the stay application filed by the petitioner in Revision No. R202408000001828 under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 titled as 'Safik Mohammad vs. Hukumchand and Ors.' on the date fixed i.e. 26.11.2024 and till then, the parties may be directed to maintain status quo in the interest of justice.

It is further submitted that the respondents in the revision are raising construction due to which the nature of the property will change.

On being specifically asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that whether petitioner has preferred any application for early disposal of aforesaid stay application filed along with r the revision before the respondent no. 2 showing the urgency, it has been replied by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such application has been preferred before the Court concerned and petitioner has approached this Court directly for deciding the same expeditiously.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petition may be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the stay application filed along with the revision before the Court concerned and if any such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of aforesaid stay application before the respondent no. 2. If any such application is preferred, it is expected that the respondent

no. 2 shall decide the urgency application preferred by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

Order Date :- 21.11.2024 Nitesh

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench