Allahabad High Court
Nandu And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 3 August, 2022
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 728 of 2022 Petitioner :- Nandu And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, learned standing counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.
Instant writ petition is arising out of interim order, which was granted by the trial court.
Grievance of the petitioners is that trial court has illegally granted interim order for maintaining the status quo on spot on the application moved by the plaintiff/respondent No. 4.
Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition reveals that the respondent No. 4, Durga Singh Maurua has filed a suit dated 20.6.2008 for dispossession under Section 209 of UPZA and LR Act being Original Suit No. 4 of 2008. Along with aforesaid suit, the plaintiff has also moved stay application dated 20.6.2008. Trial court has jotted in the margin of the aforesaid application on the same day i.e. 20.6.2008 granting interim order for maintaining status quo on the spot. Feeling aggrieved against the interim order dated 20.6.2008, the present petitioners have filed revision before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.11.2021.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that interim order date 20.6.2008 was an ex-parte order without issuing any notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are recorded tenure holder over the plot in question, therefore, injunction against the recorded tenure holder is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the trial court and revisional court have illegally passed the order against the petitioners without adverting to their grievances. The impugned orders passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 are illegal, unwarranted in law and suffers from infirmity, which are liable to be quashed.
Learned standing counsel as well as learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha contended that the petitioners have an alternative remedy to move a stay vacation application or file a detailed objection against the stay application for redressal of their grievances and the same shall be considered and decided by the court concerned.
Perusal of the record reveals that the respondent No. 4 has filed suit for dispossession under Section 209 of UPZA and LR Act. Along with the plaint, he has filed a stay application as well. Learned trial court, on the same day, jotted in the margin of the stay application passing an interim order for maintaining status quo.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to explain as to what is the present status of the case before the trial court. He is also not in a position to state as to whether defendants/petitioners have filed any stay vacation application along with objection before the trial court or not. In this eventuality, the present petitioners still have an opportunity to oppose the stay order dated 20.6.2008 by moving a stay vacation application before the trial court along with a detailed objection/written statement, which may be considered and decided by the trial court in accordance with law.
In this conspectus as above, I do not see any merit to entertain the present writ petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merits and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to the cost. However, considering the fact that it is an old case of 2008, it would be befitting to issue a direction to the trial court, before whom the suit is pending after order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, to decide the suit pending before it expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.8.2022 vinay