Dismissed

Patwari Lal and 3 Others v. Commissioner Lucknow Division Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2025A227/3813/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 227, the High Court directed the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, to expedite the disposal of an interim relief application pending in a revision filed under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, regarding construction on disputed land, while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Commissioner, Lucknow Division, to consider the interim relief application by 08.07.2025 or within one month, and maintain status quo.

Patwari Lal and 3 Others Vs Commissioner Lucknow… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35367

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3813 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Patwari Lal And 3 Others Respondent :- Commissioner Lucknow Division Lko. And 7 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Kant Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Ram Vishal Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶8

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

¶9

"(i) Issue a direction to the opposite party no.1 to ensure the expedite disposal of the interim relief application dated 28.04.2025 filed along with Revision No. 1782 of 2025, Computerized Case No. C202510000001782, Patwari and others versus Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue and others, filed under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on which no interim order has been passed on the date of first hearing though there was urgent need of interim order as the opposite party no.4 to 8 are raising construction forcibly over the land in question i.e. Gata No.311/0.78 hectare.

¶10

(ii) Issue a direction to the respondent no.4 to 8 restraining thereby from raising construction over the land in question/road side land i.e. Gata No. 311/0.78 hectare situated in Village Padariya, Pargana- Atava Piparya, Tehsil- Mohammadi, District- Lakhimpur Kheri."

¶11

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Revision bearing Case No.1782 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. C202510000001782, Patwari and others versus Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue and others) filed under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the learned Commissioner, Lucknow Division,

¶12

Lucknow (opposite party no.1). He submits that the agricultural lease in favour of the father of the petitioner no.1 and the grandfather of the petitioner no.2 namely Sri Hardayal was granted on 07.03.2024. He further submits that on a time barred complaint moved by the opposite party no.4, the aforesaid lease was cancelled on 18.03.2025 in the most arbitrary manner and without following the due process as provided under the law.

¶13

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred revision before the learned Commissioner, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the same is pending for adjudication. He contends that the learned court of Commissioner (opposite party no.1) vide order dated 29.04.2025 entertained the said revision and issued notices to the opposite parties. It has been very categorically contended on behalf of the petitioner that the application for interim relief dated 28.04.2025 filed along with the aforesaid revision has not been considered by the learned Revisional Court and the next date fixed in the case is 08.07.2025. In support of his contention that Revisional Court is under legal obligation to consider the application for interim relief, once the revision has been entertained, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Mool Chand Yadav & another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur & others , reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484 .

¶14

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav (supra), has held as under:

¶15

"........ 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."

¶16

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

¶17

has held as under:

¶18

"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."

¶19

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned application for interim relief, within stipulated period as to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondents no.3 to 8 is dispensed with.

¶21

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.

¶22

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties present before the Court, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (respondent No.1), to consider and pass appropriate order on the petitioners' application for interim relief dated 28.04.2025 filed along with the Revision No. 1782 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. C202510000001782), strictly in accordance with law, on the next date fixed i.e. 08.07.2025, if possible or within a maximum period of one month thereafter.

¶23

It is provided that till the disposal of the petitioners' application for interim relief dated 28.04.2025, status-quo as of today in respect of nature and possession of the petitioners over the land in question shall be maintained by the parties.

¶24

However, it is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and the Revisional Court while deciding the petitioners' application for interim relief shall not be prejudiced by the interim protection granted herein above.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 11.6.2025 Abhishek Gupta

¶27

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

Patwari Lal and 3 Others v. Commissioner Lucknow Division Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patwari Lal and 3 Others v. Commissioner Lucknow Division Lko. and 7 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manju Devi Vs Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) South Unnao and 2 Others

Smt. Swati Singh Vs Addl. Prin. Judge Court NO.2 Family Courts Lko and Another

Manokamini Singh Vs Addl. Civil Judge Senior Division Court No 3 Hardoi and 3 Others

Priyanka Chaudhary vs Vijay Kumar Addl. Secy. U.O.I. Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies New Delhi and 4 Others

Patwari Lal and 3 Others vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lko. and 7 Others

Rajesh Kumar vs Managing Director U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Banks Ltd. Lko. and 2 Others