Disposed

Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of Up and 8 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024WRIC/16473/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of an order refusing extension of interim protection in a partition appeal. The High Court directed the respondent commissioner to decide the appeal within three months and maintain the interim status quo.

What did the court decide?

Director respondent to decide pending appeal within three months and maintain interim protection pending disposal.

Ashok Kumar and Another vs State of Up and 8 Others — Partition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:109468

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16473 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Saurabh Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶8

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.4.2024 passed by respondent no.2, Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Agra Division Agra."

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that suit for partition under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by petitioners was dismissed by the Trial Court. He further submitted that appeal filed under section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with the stay application was admitted and time bound interim protection was granted which was extended on certain dates. He further submitted that application for extension of interim order filed by petitioners on the date fixed has been rejected under the impugned order. He submitted that once the appeal/ revision has been admitted, the interim protection must be granted in view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur reported in (1982) 3 SCC 484 .

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that no interference is required against the order rejecting the application for extension of interim order. They further submitted that petitioners can appear in the pending proceeding which will be decided in accordance with law.

¶11

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶12

There is no dispute about the fact that appeal filed by petitioners against the order passed in the proceeding under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before respondent no.2 but prayer for extension of interim order has been refused under the impugned order.

¶13

Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav (Supra) as well as this court in the case reported in 2007 (102) RD 498, Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector, Bijnor and Others held that the interim protection be granted during pendency of appeal / revision if the order under appeal/ revision has serious civil consequences.

¶14

Considering the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no.2, Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Agra Division, Agra to decide the aforementioned appeal after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that till the disposal of aforementioned appeal by respondent no.2, the interim protection for maintaining status quo which was granted by the appellate Court/ respondent no.2 shall remain in operation. The notice has not been issued to the private respondents, as such, private respondents shall have liberty to make application before this Court against this order if they are aggrieved by this order in any manner.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Vandana Y.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of Up and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of Up and 8 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

Jay Singh vs State of Up and 8 Others

Dharm Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sri Ronald Charles vs Union of India and 3 Others

Smt Vijay Laxmi and Another vs State of Up and 6 Others

Rampal vs State of U.P. and 33 Others

Sarita Devi and 2 Others vs State of Up and 4 Others