Allahabad High Court
Babu Lal vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation,Lko. ... on 4 January, 2021
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 19 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 25369 of 2020 Petitioner :- Babu Lal Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation,Lko. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Srivastava,Gaurav Chand Kaushik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd. Ali Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Mohd. Ali learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties no.4 and 5.
Shri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, by means of the instant petition assails the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the opposite party no.1 in Revision No.307 of 2020 (Babu Lal Vs. Om Prakash and others).
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had preferred a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. CH Act 1953 being aggrieved against the orders dated 19.12.2013 and 30.09.2020. It is further submitted that on hearing of the revision, the same was entertained and the petitioner had pressed the application for interim relief which came to be dismissed by means of the order dated 08.10.2020 which has been assailed in the instant petition.
Shri Srivastava submits that from the perusal of the impugned order, it would indicate that there is no reason assigned by the opposite party no.1 in rejecting the application nor there is any consideration of the material or to submission made by the respective parties. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the order is bad and cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
Shri Mohd. Ali learned counsel for the opposite parties no.4 and 5 submits that the opposite party no.1 while considering the submission of the parties has noted that no balance of convenience accrued in favour of the petitioner and as such there was no reason for grant of any interim relief in favour of the revisionist/petitioner herein. Accordingly, the application was rejected and the order passed by the opposite party no.1 does not require any interference from this Court.
The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.
From the perusal of the impugned order dated 08.10.2020, it would indicate that though the revision of the petitioner was entertained. However, while considering the application for interim relief the impugned order does not consider any submission made by either of the parties. It merely a record that both parties were heard and balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the revisionist.
This Court is at loss for wards to understand and express as to what was the material which was available before the revisional court which was considered from which it arrived at a finding that no balance of convenience ley in favour of the petitioner.
The Court is constrained to note that the order dated 08.10.2020 is absolutely cryptic and does not illustrate any reasoning nor does it refer to the basic case or submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Cyril Lasrado (Dead) By Lrs. and another Vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another reported in (2004) 7 SCC, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 08.10.2020 cannot be sustained.
At this stage, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.4 and 5 submits that this Court may allow the parties to appear before the opposite party no.1 with a direction that the application may be heard afresh after considering the respective submissions.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The order dated 08.10.2020 is set aside and the application for interim relief shall stand restored on the file of the opposite party no.1. Both the parties shall appear before the opposite party no.1 on the date fixed and shall argue the matter. The opposite party no.1 shall after hearing the parties by a reasoned and detailed order decide the application for interim relief on the date fixed itself or if the same is not possible, then within two weeks thereafter. Till the disposal of the application for interim relief, the parties shall maintain status quo as exists today.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 4.1.2021 ank