Disposed

Vijay Lal Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2025WRIC/4577/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged rejection of an interim protection (stay) application in a revenue case under Section 331(3) of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. The High Court found the Additional Commissioner had passed the rejection without recording any reasons, quashed that part of the order, and remanded for fresh consideration on 27.05.2025, expressly leaving merits untouched.

What did the court decide?

Impugned stay-rejection order dated 16.04.2025 quashed to that extent; matter remanded to opposite party No.2 to decide interim protection afresh.

Vijay Lal Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28918

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4577 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Vijay Lal Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajaiy Kumar Mishra,Kapil Dev Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Kr. Misra,Pankaj Gupta,Virendra Kumar Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Virendra Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the Caveator, opposite party No.4, who appears to be the main contesting party as he filed the suit impleading various persons including Prabhawati, who also filed a suit for declaration impleading various persons as defendants including Ramakant Mishra S/o Vaij Nath Mishra as main defendant, and both the suits were decided vide order dated 08.11.2024, which is favourable to the opposite party No.4 Ramakant Mishra S/o Vaij Nath Mishra, Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the O.P. No.6, who filed his Vakalatnama which is taken on record as well as Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the other private opposite parties is hereby dispensed with. It is for the reason that the issuance of notices would delay the conclusion of dispute and these opposite parties would not be in a position to dispute the facts of the case and the law on the issue.

¶8

The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief:-

¶9

"Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the part of impugned order dated 16-04-2025 relating to the stay application passed by opposite party No.-2 in Case No.377/2025 (computerized case No. C202502000000377) filed U/s 331(3) U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act, 1950 "Vijay Lal Shukla Versus Ramakant and others" which is contained as Annexure No.1, to this writ petition.

¶10

Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directed to opposite parties not interfere in the disputed land in pursuance of order dated 8/11/2024 during the pendency of this writ petition.

¶11

Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allowed this writ petition with substantial cost, throughout."

¶12

Upon due consideration of the order impugned, this Court finds that while rejecting the application seeking interim protection the opposite party No.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial)-II, Prayagraj Mandal, Prayagraj has not recorded any reason which ought to have been recorded in view of the settled proposition that for allowing or rejecting the claim including the application seeking interim protection reasons should be recorded, which has also not been refuted.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, passed by the opposite party No.2Additional Commissioner-II, Prayagraj Mandal, Prayagraj is quashed to the extent whereby the application seeking interim protection has been rejected without recording any reason.

¶14

The matter is remanded back to the opposite party No.2 to consider the prayer made in the application seeking interim protection on the next date fixed in the case i.e. on 27.05.2025, as it appears that the date fixed in the case i.e. 25.05.2025 has inadvertently been fixed and after considering the entire aspect of the case, if it appears that the the interim protection is required then in that eventuality the same be provided to the petitioner.

¶15

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.5.2025

¶18

ML/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Lal Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Lal Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. 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

Ram Yash and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Dewanand Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Dayanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Anand Pratap Singh Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Haidergarh, Barabanki and Another

Smt. Ram Rati Devi Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Bahraich and Ors.