Allahabad High Court
Shiv Mangal vs Board Of Revenue Up At Prayagraj And 4 ... on 19 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3648 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shiv Mangal Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Up At Prayagraj And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha.
2. The instant petition has been filed for mandamus commanding respondent no.1 i.e. Board of Revenue to decide the Revision No.1215 of 2016, Computerized Case No.AL20160531001215 filed by the petitioner under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act within stipulated period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order dated 17.3.2016 passed by the Commissioner, a revision was filed by the petitioner in the year 2016, in which initially the interim order was granted on 1.8.2016 staying the operation of the order dated 17.3.2016 which was extended on certain dates but due to Covid-19 pandemic, interim order was not extended. He further submitted that the stay extension application dated 12.12.2022 has been filed by the petitioner but the stay extension application has not been considered by the Board of Revenue although there is an urgency in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (102) RD 498, Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. Through Collector, Bijnor and Others in order to demonstrate that the interim protection be granted during pendency of appeal / revision if the order under appeal and revision has serious civil consequences.
4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that the revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is pending before respondent no.1 in which initially the interim order was granted, the interim order has not been vacated at all but it has not been extended due to Covid-19 pandemic.
6. This Court in Ali Sher (supra) has held that if the order under appeal or revision has serious civil consequences, the operation of the order during pendency of appeal or revision must be suspended. Paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the judgment is relevant which is as follows:
"4. It is well settled that once an appeal or revision is entertained by a higher Court against an order having civil consequences stay normally should be granted to avoid swinging pendulum unless the Court for the reasons to be recorded finds that there is no case for grant of stay as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand v. Raza Buland Sugar Industries."
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 16.11.2006 is hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. Appellate Court is directed to disposal of the appeal of petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him and till the disposal of appeal as directed above, parties shall maintain status quo with regard to nature and possession over the land in dispute."
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as ratio of law laid down in Ali Sher (supra), the writ petition is finally disposed of directing respondent no.1 to decide the aforementioned pending revision within period of two months and till the pendency of the revision by the Board of Revenue, the interim order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue shall remain in operation.
8. Since respondent no.4, who is private contesting respondent, has not been heard by this Court, the liberty is given to respondent no.4 to file application for recall before this Court if he has any grievance against this order.
9. With the above observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Rameez