Partly allowed

Smt. Askiya Begum @ Asikaya Begam v. Additional Commissioner ADMINISTRATION-1, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2026WRIC/2122/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the portion of an order by the Additional Commissioner that rejected an application for interim stay without reasoning. The Court restored the application for decision on merits and directed status quo to prevent alienation of the disputed property pending the revision.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order rejecting interim stay; restoration of application for decision; status quo directed until 10.04.2026.

Smt. Askiya Begum @ Asikaya Begam vs Additional… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 2122 of 2026

¶3

Smt. Askiya Begum @ Asikaya Begam

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Additional Commissioner Administration-1, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And Others

¶7

aan ana, ona n	ers	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Adil Aziz Khan, Megha Sachan	Aman Agarwal,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Pankaj Gupta learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.24-Gaon Sabha.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.1 while admitting the revision of the present petitioner have issued notice to the private respondent in the revision and also summoned the records fixing 22.12.2025, however, the application for stay has been rejected. It is against the said limited part of the order whereby the application for interim stay has been rejected is under challenge before this Court. It is urged that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question and the private respondents taking the benefit have sold part of the property by means of a sale deed dated 19.01.2026. It is urged that the matter is listed before the Additional Commissioner on 23.03.2026 and rejecting the application for interim relief without ascribing any reason by a single sentence is patently erroneous.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of material on record, it reveals that apparently the revision is pending before the respondent no.1 wherein the next date fixed is 23.03.2026. It is also quite evident that by means of the order dated 28.11.2025, the revision was admitted and merely by a single sentence " स्थगन का औिचत्य नहीं है" the

¶13

WRIC No. 2122 of 2026

¶14

¶15

application for interim relief has been rejected. Such an order is patently non speaking, non reasoned and cannot be appreciated in law. This Court in the aforesaid circumstances, where the parties have already put in appearance before the respondent no.1 and it is listed 23.03.2026, this Court, at this stage, does not deem appropriate to issue notice to the private respondents or called for any response for the simple reason that the rejection of the application for interim order by a single sentence which has been quoted above, cannot be defended at any cost and in any situation.

¶16

The order dated 28.11.2025 whereby the application for interim relief has been rejected by respondent no.1, that portion is set aside. The application for interim relief shall stand restored on the Board of respondent no.1 who shall after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the application for interim relief on the next date fixed or if the same is not possible then within two weeks, thereafter.

¶17

As an interim protection, till the decision on the said application or till 10.04.2026, whichever is earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo so as to not execute or alienate the property in question or create any third party right.

¶18

With the aforesaid, the petition stands partly allowed.

¶19

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶20

March 13, 2026 Harshita

¶21

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

Smt. Askiya Begum @ Asikaya Begam v. Additional Commissioner ADMINISTRATION-1, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Askiya Begum @ Asikaya Begam v. Additional Commissioner ADMINISTRATION-1, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gauhar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lko. and Others

Dukhharn Singh vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Sri Ram Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya and 11 Others

M/S Dhananjay Trading Company Thru. Proprietor Radhey Shyam Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration Lko and 3 Others

Satyendra Singh and Others vs Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lko. and Another

Shyam and Another vs Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others