Disposed

Raj Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC13 Jun 2024WRIB/645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Chief Revenue Officer to decide the pending Section 66 application under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within six weeks, citing unavoidable delay of over two years violating Rule 65(10). A stay on dispute status quo was ordered until the final decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to competent authority to decide pending application within six weeks and maintenance of status quo.

Raj Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43006

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 645 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Shukla,Shyam Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

¶7

No notice need be issued to the respondents No.6 to 51 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.

¶8

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being disposed of.

¶9

Under challenge is the order dated 22.05.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the revision filed by the petitioners under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code, 2006') has been rejected on the ground of maintainability. Also under challenge is the order dated 15.04.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, whereby the stay order granted to the petitioners has been vacated.

¶10

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that aggrieved against the allotment of abadi sites to the private respondents herein, the petitioners had filed an application under Section 66 of the Code, 2006 on 12.01.2022 before the Collector. An interim order dated 08.01.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition, was passed by the competent authority whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo over the land in dispute.

¶11

Subsequent thereto by means of the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 said order has been vacated but the said application filed under Section 66 of the Code, 2006 is still pending.

¶12

Being aggrieved against the vacation of the interim order, the

¶13

petitioners filed a revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006, which has been rejected on the ground that as the said revision has been filed against an interim order as such the revision is not maintainable.

¶14

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal of the revision, as well as vacation of the interim order, the instant petition has been filed.

¶15

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on the one hand, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 66 of the Code, 2006 is pending although Rule 65(10) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2016') stipulates that the Collector shall make an endeavour to conclude the enquiry within a period not exceeding 6 months from the date of registration of the case and if the enquiry is not concluded within the aforesaid period to record reasons but despite a lapse of more than 2 years, the said application is still pending and on the other hand, instead of deciding the application finally, the stay order has been vacated.

¶16

The contention is that once the rights of the parties are involved consequently it was in the fitness of things that the said application filed under Section 66 of the Code, 2006 itself should have been decided rather than vacating the stay order and keeping the matter pending at his end for consideration. It is also contended that there is no occasion for the revisional court to have rejected the revision filed by the petitioner on the aforesaid ground.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5 are unable to controvert specific provisions of Sub Rule (10) of Rule 65 of Rule, 2016, which stipulates that the application filed under Section 66 of the Code, 2006 should be decided within a period of 6 months from the registration of the case failing which reasons thereof should be recorded.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶19

record, it emerges that the petitioners being aggrieved by the allotment of the abadi sites filed an application under Section 60 of the Code, 2006 before the Collector in January, 2022. Sub Rule (10) of Rule 65 of the Rules, 2016 stipulates that the Collector shall make an endeavour to conclude the enquiry within a period not exceeding 6 months from the date of registration of the case and if the enquiry is not concluded within the period aforesaid the reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶20

After filing of the application, an interim order dated 08.01.2024 was granted in favour of the petitioners whereby status quo was directed to be maintained by the parties.

¶21

Subsequent thereto by means of the order impugned dated 15.04.2024 stay order has been vacated and the revision filed against the same has also been rejected on the ground that the revision would not be maintainable against an interim order.

¶22

Even without observing anything on the order passed by the revisional Court dated 22.05.2024 and without entering into the question as to whether the said revision would be maintainable or not, the fact of the matter is that once Sub Rule (10) of Rule 65 of the Rules, 2016 stipulates that the matters filed under Section 66 of Code, 2006 have to be decided within six months failing which reasons should be recorded and a period of more than 2 years have lapsed and there was an interim order granted in favour of the petitioners on 08.01.2024, consequently it was in the fitness of things that the application filed by the petitioners itself should have been decided rather than the stay order being vacated.

¶23

Even otherwise, no reasons emerge from the order dated 15.04.2024 as to why the Collector has been unable to decide the application under Section 65 of the Code, 2006 within stipulated period of 6 months.

¶24

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority, who is said to

¶25

be Chief Revenue Officer, Ayodhya, before whom the application under Section 66 of the Code, 2006 is pending, to decide the said application after hearing all the parties in accordance with law, provided there is no legal impediment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

Till the said application is decided, status quo as of today shall be maintained by all the parties pertaining to the land in dispute. It is also provided that the petitioners shall not alienate the land in dispute till the decision of the application under Section 66 of the Code, 2006. Order Date :- 13.6.2024 prateek

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya 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

Upasna Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Subhashini Tomar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Medical Education and Training, Lucknow and Others

Constable Civil Police Personnel No 192661775 Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Raj Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya and Others

Constable Driver (Cdr) Personnel No.- 060502751, Raish Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others