Allahabad High Court
Radhey Shyam vs State Of U.P.Thru. Principal Secretary ... on 2 June, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3369 of 2022 Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Principal Secretary Revenue Deptt. Civil Secretariat Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
Heard Sri Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State.
Against the Bunch of writ petitions decided on 25.11.2013 benefit of which was given to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6250(M/B) of 2013 vide order dated 04.12.2013 as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner most of the writ petitions have been dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2016 specifically Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17620 of 2014 which is referred in the revenue record/Khatauni annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, however, there is one SLP bearing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20104 of 2014; State of U.p. Vs. Mohd. Faiyaz wherein the same judgment is under challenge as is mentioned in the impugned order and it arises out of Writ Petition No. 8651 (M/B) of 2013 and in the said SLP bearing No. 20104 of 2014 there is an interim order to the effect - "In the meantime parties shall maintain status quo in regard to mutation entry/records of right.
Now, the fact is that in pursuance to the contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner after the judgment dated 04.12.2013 in his case, his name was recorded, but, as Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgment dated 25.11.2013, benefit of which was given to the petitioner, therefore, the said entry was made subject to result of the said SLP No. 17620 of 2014. No doubt only one SLP is mentioned in the mutation entry in the revenue records, but, the fact is that against the same judgment there were several SLPs, one of which is still pending as mentioned hereinabove, therefore, as long as the status quo order continues in the said SLP which also arises out of the judgment dated 25.11.2013 referred hereinabove, the opposite parties can not be faulted for declining to delete the entry in the revenue record/ Khatauni by which the mutation entry has been made subject to final decision by the Supreme Court. Merely because one SLP bearing No. 17620 of 2014 is mentioned is inconsequential, as, ultimately, what it means is that unless the judgment dated 25.11.2013 attains finality the said condition can not be deleted. We do not find any error in the impugned order.
In any case no prejudice is caused to the petitioner as of now because his name is very much there in the Khatauni in respect of the Gata claimed by him. The only thing is there is a condition mentioned therein that it is subject to decision in Special Leave Petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 2.6.2022 R.K.P.