Petitioner sought quashing of an order rejecting interim relief in a revenue appeal and direction for status-quo on land. Court noted facts were not placed before appellate court. With consent, petition dismissed as not pressed, noting liberty to move interim application before appellate authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34135
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2704 of 2024
Petitioner :- Jhun Jhun Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar Sahu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 27.12.2023 passed by respondent no. 2/Additional Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya by which the interim relief application filed along with the appeal has been rejected and with a further prayer to direct the respondents to maintain status-quo over the land Gata No. 607(ka) area 0.398 Hectare situated at village Jamunipur, Pargana Amasin, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya during the pendency of the appeal filed under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed whereby the respondent no. 2 has refused to grant interim relief in favour of the petitioner despite the fact that the respondent nos. 4 to 20 have started collecting material on the land in dispute for raising construction.
It is further submitted that the appeal has been admitted and the interim relief application of the petitioner has been refused to be granted without condoning the delay in the appeal.
On being asked whether the petitioner has taken the ground as mentioned in para 10 & 14 of the writ petition regarding the action on the part of respondent nos. 4 to 20 as mentioned above, it has been replied that the same has not been placed before the appellate court.
Once the petitioner had not brought all these facts which has been mentioned in the present writ petition before the appellate court then the finding given by the appellate court in the impugned order is not erroneous.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition as dismissed as not pressed with liberty to move an application for injunction/interim relief before the appellate court bringing all these facts and on the application for interim relief preferred by the petitioner, a direction may be issued to
the respondent no. 2 to decide the same within a stipulated time as this Court may fix.
Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
It is always open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application in the pending appeal for which no liberty is required.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024 Nitesh
Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as not pressed on consent?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jhun Jhun Yadav
State Of U.P.
Manish Kumar
Nitesh Kumar Tewary
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
