Disposed

Rinki v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024WRIC/22750/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition without deciding merits. It directed the Upziladhikari, Mariyahu, to dispose of a pending appeal and stay application under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within six months, recording reasons if delayed, and to decide the interim relief application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Upziladhikari, Mariyahu to dispose pending appeal and stay application within six months and decide interim relief application within one month, recording reasons for delay.

Rinki vs State of Up and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:126007

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22750 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rinki Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent no.1 & 2 and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present petition has been filed with the following relief:-

¶8

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2/Upziladhikari, Mariyahu to decide the stay application dated 21.05.2024 filed by petitioner in Appeal No. T202414360604277 (Rinki vs. Tadak Nath) u/s 35(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within stipulated time, as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶9

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the contesting respondent to maintain status quo on the spot, till the disposal of stay application/appeal filed by the petitioner."

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal under Section 35(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been filed by the petitioner along with application for interim relief before the Upziladhikari, Mariyahu, District Jaunpur (respondent no.2) but no order has been passed on his application for interim relief dated 21.05.2024. He contends that once the statutory appeal has been entertained by the appellate court, it is incumbent upon the appellate court to consider and pass order on the application for interim relief.

¶11

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav

¶12

& another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur & others , reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484 , has held as under:

¶13

"........ But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. Moreso, when appeal is admitted. Previous history of litigation cannot be overlooked."

¶14

This Court in the case of Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. through Collector Bijnor & others ; reported in 2007 (102) RD 498 , has held as under:

¶15

"It is well settled that once an appeal or revision is entertained by a higher Court against an order having civil consequences stay normally should be granted to avoid swinging pendulum unless the Court for the reasons to be recorded finds that there is no case for grant of stay as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand v. Raza Buland Sugar Industries."

¶16

Para 458 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual provides as under:

¶17

"458. Speedy Disposal- (1) The court shall endeavour to finally decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of institution of the suit and if the suit is not decided within the period aforesaid, the reason for the same shall be recorded.

¶18

(2) The appellate or the revisional court shall endeavour to finally decide the appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded."

¶19

There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within the period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶20

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned appeal along with application for interim relief, within stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

¶21

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the

¶22

service of notice upon the respondents no.3 & 4 is dispensed with.

¶23

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶24

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, with a direction to the Upziladhikari, Mariyahu, District Jaunpur (respondent no.2), before whom the Appeal No. T202414360604277 is pending for disposal, to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶25

It is further directed that the authority concerned shall consider and pass appropriate order on the petitioner's application for interim relief dated 21.05.2024, on its merit, strictly in accordance with law, on the next date fixed or within a period of one month thereafter.

¶26

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶27

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Abhishek Gupta

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rinki v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinki v. State of Up and 3 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

Jan Jyoti Institute of Para Medical Sciences vs Regional Director National Institute of Open Schooling and 2 Others

Dharmendra Singh Gautam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kshitij Soni Minor vs State of Up and 2 Others

Milwa Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Munni vs State of Up and 12 Others

Committe of Management Madhubhan Shiksha Samiti and Another vs State of Up and 6 Others