High Court

Magistrate/Assistant Collector First Class, Lucknow, thereby holding that the sale deed was in violation of Section 157A and consequently vested the said plot purchased by the petitioners with the State. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2006, preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow, Division Lucknow, assailing the aforesaid order which has also been rejected.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said sale is not hit by the provisions of Section 157A, inasmuch as the tenure holder had sold the said land in favour of a Cooperative Society for housing purposes, and in such a sale, the provisions of Section 157-Ka of the UPZA&LR Act would not be applicable. It is in the revisional proceedings that the Additional Commissioner (Administration) had passed an interim order in favour of the petitioners on 26.06.2019, staying the order of vesting in the State Government till service of notice on the opposite parties in the said revision. As the notice could not be served on the respondents in the revision, publication was made, and after publication, the service was deemed to be served upon the opposite parties, and an application for extension of the interim order was given by the petitioners in light of the fact that the initial order was only effective till service is effected on the respondents. It is the said application which has come to be decided on 26.07.2025 which has been impugned in the present writ petition, wherein the Additional Commissioner (Administration) has declined to extend the interim protection to the petitioner. The only reason given is that at the stage of passing of the said order, all of the respondents have been served and the matter has been heard and accordingly, now there is no reason for extending the interim protection.

5. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that their valuable rights under Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India, pertaining to right of property are at stake and the revision is still subjudice before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) and therefore, during the pendency of this proceeding, the disputed property ought to be protected, and not demolished any time prior to passing of the final order in the said revision. He submits that there is all likelihood of the revision being allowed, and in case the respondents are permitted to demolish the disputed premises, then the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injuries, which could not be liable to be compensated, even if the revision is allowed at a subsequent stage.

6. It is in the aforesaid circumstances when this petition was filed, considering the allegations made by the petitioners that it is the Nagar Nigam which is proceeding to demolish the disputed structure, this Court had directed the counsel for Nagar Nigam to produce before this Court the notices and orders passed in the present matter leading to the purported demolition of the disputed premises. It has been submitted by counsel for respondent no.4 that they do not intend to demolish or interfere in the possession of the property situated at Plot No.95, Khurram Nagar. It has further been stated that there is no doubt that the orders have been passed to demolish the property situated at Plots No.93 and 94, which, according to them, are recorded as "banjar" and "talab" respectively. It has been submitted that the occupants therein have already been subjected to a notice and have submitted their objections, which have been considered, and it is only after following the procedure prescribed by law that they are proceeding to demolish the said structures but made categorical statement that they are not proceeding to demolish any property situated at Plot No. 95.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, firstly, I find that the order dated 26.07.2025, rejecting the application for extension of the stay, is clearly arbitrary once the rights of the petitioners were protected by means of the interim order dated 26.06.2019, then no fresh material came to the knowledge of the revisional authority for not extending the interim order, even if the respondent therein had been adequately served.

8. Apart from above, I find that the matter such as demolition, the authority should wait for the final orders/adjudication to be passed by the competent authority before rushing into demolishing the disputed structure. In case, the proceedings are pending, then the aggrieved persons have full opportunity and hope that the matter would be considered favourably, and in case it is so, then there would not be any occasion to proceed with the demolition of the disputed structure. Therefore, in all likelihood, Where a prima facie case is made out in favour of persons, who have approached the competent authority, the property deserves to be protected till final orders are passed. Accordingly, I find that by declining to extend interim order, the opposite party no.3 acted in most illegal and arbitrary manner. Accordingly, order dated 26.07.2026 is set aside.

9. Further considering the statement made by counsel for respondent no.4 that the Nagar Nigam is not proceeded to demolish the structure existing at Plot No.95. I find that apprehensions expressed by petitioner is unfounded.

10. For the reasons above, the petition is allowed.

11. The respondent no.2 is directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession or proceed to demolish the property in question till final orders are passed in revision preferred by the petitioner which is pending before the respondent no.3. Accordingly, interim order dated 26.06.2025 is extended till decision of the revision. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 KR [Alok Mathur,J.]

Magistrate/Assistant Collector First Class, Lucknow, thereby holding that the sale deed was in violation of Section 157A and consequently vested the said plot purchased by the petitioners with the State. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2006, preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow, Division Lucknow, assailing the aforesaid order which has also been rejected.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said sale is not hit by the provisions of Section 157A, inasmuch as the tenure holder had sold the said land in favour of a Cooperative Society for housing purposes, and in such a sale, the provisions of Section 157-Ka of the UPZA&LR Act would not be applicable. It is in the revisional proceedings that the Additional Commissioner (Administration) had passed an interim order in favour of the petitioners on 26.06.2019, staying the order of vesting in the State Government till service of notice on the opposite parties in the said revision. As the notice could not be served on the respondents in the revision, publication was made, and after publication, the service was deemed to be served upon the opposite parties, and an application for extension of the interim order was given by the petitioners in light of the fact that the initial order was only effective till service is effected on the respondents. It is the said application which has come to be decided on 26.07.2025 which has been impugned in the present writ petition, wherein the Additional Commissioner (Administration) has declined to extend the interim protection to the petitioner. The only reason given is that at the stage of passing of the said order, all of the respondents have been served and the matter has been heard and accordingly, now there is no reason for extending the interim protection.

5. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that their valuable rights under Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India, pertaining to right of property are at stake and the revision is still subjudice before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) and therefore, during the pendency of this proceeding, the disputed property ought to be protected, and not demolished any time prior to passing of the final order in the said revision. He submits that there is all likelihood of the revision being allowed, and in case the respondents are permitted to demolish the disputed premises, then the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injuries, which could not be liable to be compensated, even if the revision is allowed at a subsequent stage.

6. It is in the aforesaid circumstances when this petition was filed, considering the allegations made by the petitioners that it is the Nagar Nigam which is proceeding to demolish the disputed structure, this Court had directed the counsel for Nagar Nigam to produce before this Court the notices and orders passed in the present matter leading to the purported demolition of the disputed premises. It has been submitted by counsel for respondent no.4 that they do not intend to demolish or interfere in the possession of the property situated at Plot No.95, Khurram Nagar. It has further been stated that there is no doubt that the orders have been passed to demolish the property situated at Plots No.93 and 94, which, according to them, are recorded as "banjar" and "talab" respectively. It has been submitted that the occupants therein have already been subjected to a notice and have submitted their objections, which have been considered, and it is only after following the procedure prescribed by law that they are proceeding to demolish the said structures but made categorical statement that they are not proceeding to demolish any property situated at Plot No. 95.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions, firstly, I find that the order dated 26.07.2025, rejecting the application for extension of the stay, is clearly arbitrary once the rights of the petitioners were protected by means of the interim order dated 26.06.2019, then no fresh material came to the knowledge of the revisional authority for not extending the interim order, even if the respondent therein had been adequately served.

8. Apart from above, I find that the matter such as demolition, the authority should wait for the final orders/adjudication to be passed by the competent authority before rushing into demolishing the disputed structure. In case, the proceedings are pending, then the aggrieved persons have full opportunity and hope that the matter would be considered favourably, and in case it is so, then there would not be any occasion to proceed with the demolition of the disputed structure. Therefore, in all likelihood, Where a prima facie case is made out in favour of persons, who have approached the competent authority, the property deserves to be protected till final orders are passed. Accordingly, I find that by declining to extend interim order, the opposite party no.3 acted in most illegal and arbitrary manner. Accordingly, order dated 26.07.2026 is set aside.

9. Further considering the statement made by counsel for respondent no.4 that the Nagar Nigam is not proceeded to demolish the structure existing at Plot No.95. I find that apprehensions expressed by petitioner is unfounded.

10. For the reasons above, the petition is allowed.

11. The respondent no.2 is directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession or proceed to demolish the property in question till final orders are passed in revision preferred by the petitioner which is pending before the respondent no.3. Accordingly, interim order dated 26.06.2025 is extended till decision of the revision. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 KR [Alok Mathur,J.]