Disposed

Bhagauti Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2024/5461/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court discharged a writ petition at the admission stage, directing the appellate authority to decide a pending interim relief application within one month. The Court also ordered maintenance of status quo for trees while the case is pending.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appellate authority to dispose of interim relief application within one month and maintenance of status quo regarding trees.

Bhagauti Prasad and Another Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43688

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5461 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Bhagauti Prasad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Jaiswal,Deepika Srivastava,Mamta Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Prashant Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties no.1, 2, 3 & 5.

¶7

Notice on behalf of opposite party no.4 has been received by Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey.

¶8

This petition has been filed making the following main prayers:-

¶9

"a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing all the parties of the appeal to maintain the position of status quo on the land in dispute, till the disposal of the appeal, so that justice may be done with the petitioners.

¶10

b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing opposite party no.5 to pass appropriate interim order in the pending appeal expeditiously on the next date, so that justice may be done with the petitioners."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.4673 of 2023 filed by the petitioners, which reads as under:-

¶12

"1. Heard Shri Prashant Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.4/Gram Panchayat.

¶13

2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed the following reliefs:-

¶14

"a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impunged orders dated 11-10-2022, 29-11-2022 and 10-4-2023 passed by the opposite parties no.2 & 5 respectively, as contained in ANNEXURES No.- 9, 11 & 12 with the writ petition.

¶15

b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing all the opposite parties of the suit to maintain the position of status quo on the land in dispute, till the disposal of the suit, so that justice may be done with the petitioners."

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that while filing an application under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Code, 2006") before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sandila, Hardoi the petitioners have prayed an interim relief that till the pendency of the case, the old standing trees may not be cut but the Sub Divisional Officer, Sandila, Hardoi has rejected the interim relief application vide impugned order dated 29.11.2022 keeping the case pending. Thereafter, the petitioners have assailed the aforesaid order before the Revisional Authority by filing revision under Section 210 and the Revisional Authority i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow rejected the revision directing the original authority to decide the case.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also stated that if during the pendency of the case pending before the Sub Divisional Officer all the standing trees are cut, the purpose of filing the case under Section 144 of the Code, 2006 would be frustrated, therefore, he has requested that any direction may be issued to the competent authority to decide the aforesaid case within time frame till then any protection may be given to the petitioners.

¶18

5. Therefore, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find it appropriate that till the disposal of the application of the petitioner pending under Section 144 of the Code, 2006 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sandila, Hardoi the status quo in respect of the property in question be maintained. Accordingly, The Sub Divisional Officer, Sandila, Hardoi is directed to conclude the proceedings pending under Section 144 of the Code, 2006, strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned with expedition, preferably within a period of six months.

¶19

6. Till the conclusion of aforesaid proceedings, status quo in respect of the property in question including the old standing trees as on today shall be maintained, ignoring the impugned orders which have been passed against the petitioners. It is also directed that the petitioners shall not change the nature of the property.

¶20

7. In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of."

¶21

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioners participated in the proceedings and after conclusion of such proceedings, the petition of the petitioners filed under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. When no order was passed by the Additional Commissioner, the petitioners filed writ petition bearing Writ-C No.3538 of 2024 and the same has been decided vide order dated 19.04.2024, which reads as under:-

¶22

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶23

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondent no. 5/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow to pass an appropriate interim order in the pending appeal expeditiously or on the next date.

¶24

3. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to maintain status-quo over the land in dispute till the disposal of the appeal.

¶25

4. On being specifically asked from learned counsel for the petitioner as to when the appeal has been filed along with the interim relief application, he has informed that the same has been filed on 19.03.2024. The Court asked whether any application for early disposal of interim relief application has been moved before the respondent no. 5 or not, learned counsel for the petitioner has replied that no application has been moved before the respondent no. 5 indicating the urgency for deciding the interim relief application.

¶26

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner, within a period of one month of filing of the appeal along with the interim relief application has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that too, without moving any urgency application before the respondent no. 5, as such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition at this stage, as dismissed as not pressed with a liberty to move the urgency application before the respondent no. 5 and the same may be decided expeditiously.

¶28

7. As prayed, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to move an application indicating urgency in the matter before the respondent no. 5."

¶29

Thereafter, the petitioners filed an interim relief application before the appellate authority (Annexure No.16), however, the Additional Commissioner only issued notices to the opposite parties without admitting the appeal and without considering the interim relief application fixing the next date for 31.05.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that now, no date has been fixed in the aforesaid case by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no interim order has been passed, therefore, the petitioners are apprehensive that opposite party no.4 may likely cause irreparable loss to the petitioners by cutting mango trees of their grove land. He has fairly admitted that the petitioners are the Government lessee of that land. Therefore, he has requested that till disposal of interim relief application by the appellate authority, status quo, as on today, may be directed to be maintained.

¶30

Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this petition at the admission stage directing the appellate authority i.e. opposite party no.5 to consider and dispose of the interim relief application of the petitioners filed in Case No.1420 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.C202410000001420), under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by reasoned and speaking order, by affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶31

Till disposal of the interim relief application or for a period of one month from today, whichever is earlier, status quo in respect of the trees only, as on today, shall be maintained.

¶32

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶33

Order Date :- 20.6.2024 RBS/-

¶34

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhagauti Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagauti Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhure @ Rizwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Jumman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Pankaj Rajput Vs Prin. Judge Family Court Lko. and 2 Others

Mahngi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Rajeev Gupta and 2 Others Vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Its Managing Director Lko and 3 Others

Amit Goyal Vs Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow and Others