Allahabad High Court
Basmati vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 23 January, 2024
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:10639 Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 53 of 2024 Petitioner :- Basmati Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, with the following prayer:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.3/Consolidation Officer, Dumariyaganj, District-Siddharth Nagar to decide the Case No.144/2023, Munesar Vs. Kalna, under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act relating to village-Manadei, Tappa-Karahi, Pargana- Rasoolpur, Tehsil-Dumariyaganj, District-Siddharth Nagar and till then the parties may be directed not to create 3rd party interest and also not change the nature of land in question, within stipulated period, specified by this Hon'ble Court."
2. It is submitted that initial order dated 5.4.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer has been recalled by subsequent order dated 16.8.2023. Thereafter, objection under Section 9A(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act is pending consideration despite the facts that parties are appeared and case is ready for final adjudication.
3. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in case a direction is issued for early disposal of the aforementioned matter.
4. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case as mentioned in the present writ petition, with a direction to Consolidation Officer, Dumariyaganj, District - Siddharth Nagar (respondent No. 3), before whom the aforementioned matter is pending disposal, to decide the same expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. It is expected that it should be decided by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
6. Before parting the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged to grant an interim relief in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as contesting private respondents are adamant to alienate the property in question and create third party right over there. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, he is at liberty to move an appropriate application for interim relief before the Consolidation Officer. In case, the said application is moved within a period ten days from today, the same shall be considered, and an appropriate order shall be passed within a period of 15 days' thereafter.
7. In the interest of justice, for a period of 25 days or till appropriate order is being passed on the stay application, as mentioned above, whichever is earlier, the parties are restrained from creating any third party right over the property in question.
8. It is made clear that the aforesaid stay application will be considered on its own merits without being influenced with any observation or direction passed by this Court in the order of the date.
9. With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.1.2024/vkg