Allahabad High Court
Harimohan Katara vs Board Of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru. ... on 25 August, 2023
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:56989 Court No. - 18 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4286 of 2023 Petitioner :- Harimohan Katara Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru. Member (Judicial), Board Of Revenue, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mehdi Abbas Rizvi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.
3. The present petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:
"(a) Expedite the hearing and disposal of the application for extension of interim relief vide annexure no. 6 dated 02.08.2023 and also revision in question Revision No. 317/2022/Agra (Harimohan Vs. Smt. Sarla Devi) Computerized Case No. R2022010100317 under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, pending before opposite party no. 1, within the time which may kindly be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(b) Till the disposal of the application vide Annexure No. 6, dated 02.08.2023, the implementation and operation of order dated 29.01.2023, passed by the Tehsildar Bhah, District - Agra, may kindly be stayed and opposite party no. 2 is also restrained from creating any third party rights of the land in dispute and maintain status quo."
4. In regard to the reliefs sought, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Authority i.e. opposite party no. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, vide order dated 28.03.2022, protected the interest of the petitioner in the Revision No. 317/2022 (Harimohan Katara Vs. Smt. Sarla Devi), Computerized Case No. R2022010100317, preferred by the petitioner under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, questioning the validity of order dated 29.01.2022 passed by Tehsildar-Bah passed in Case No. RST/480/2012-13 (Smt. Sarla Devi Vs. Bateshwar Dayal alias Bateshwari), whereby the Tehsildar passed the order in favour of the opposite party in the mutation proceedings.
5. It is also submitted that the order of interim protection dated 28.03.2022 could not be extended and as such the petitioner preferred application(s) for extension of interim protection granted by the Revisional Authority. The first application for extension of interim protection was filed on 27.09.2022, the date on which the revision was fixed and interim order was expiring and thereafter, the second application was preferred on 16.01.2023 and lastly, third application for extension of interim protection was preferred on 02.08.2023 in the Registry of opposite party no. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow. However, these application(s) have not been disposed of till date meaning thereby the interim order has not been extended and on account of non-extension of interim order, the petitioner is suffering great hardship as the contesting opposite party is adamant to seek benefit based upon the mutation entry which was made in compliance of order dated 29.01.2022 assailed in the revision. As such, the reliefs sought in the present petition be provided to the petitioner.
6. He further submitted that the interim order is liable to be extended despite the fact that period of six months with effect from the date of interim order has already expired. In this regard, reference has been made to judgment passed in Fazalullah Khan Vs. M. Akbar reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1513.
7. Considering the aforesaid as also the pendency of the application(s) and judgment referred herein-above, this Court is of the view that the interference of this Court is required.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to opposite party no. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow to consider and decide the application(s) for extension of time after taking note of entire facts and circumstances of the case including the observations made in judgment referred by the petitioner expeditiously say within a period of thirty days from the next date fixed in the case, which as per learned counsel for the petitioner, is 08.09.2023, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting any adjournment to either party and if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.
9. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer an application for preponement of the date fixed in the matter, which shall be decided by a reasoned and speaking order and in case, the Revisional Authority finds that it is a case for preponement of date, then after preponement of date, the said date be informed to opposite party in the revision so as to enable him to put her case in response to the application for extension of time.
10. Further, this Court finds that the revision is pending since 22.02.2023 before opposite party no. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and as per Para 458(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, an appeal or revision should preferably be decided within a period of six months and accordingly, it is expected from opposite party no. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow to dispose of the revision at earliest taking note of Para 458(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
11. Writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Mohit Singh/-
..............................................(Saurabh Lavania,J.)