Anuradha others v. Meera others) under Section

1. Sri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nand Lal Maurya, learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents are present.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide and consider the stay application along with Appeal No. T202407110205962 filed by the petitioner under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the parties to maintain status quo over the property in dispute."

3. This Court vide order dated 14.05.2025 granted time to learned counsel for the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit to bring on record the order-sheet as well as the status of the pending appeal.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 18.05.2025 annexing therewith the copy of the order-sheet of the appeal having Case No. 5960 of 2024 (Anuradha & others Vs. Meera & others) under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. From the perusal of the order-sheet, it is evident that the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Baberu, District Banda has already fixed the date i.e. 04.06.2025 for hearing on the application for interim relief filed in the aforesaid appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the urgency in the matter is that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are alienating the property in dispute during pendency of the statutory appeal under Section 35(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact that the statutory appeal under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the competent court and during pendency of interim relief application, the respondents are creating third party rights in the property in question that may give complicity to the pending litigation.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav & another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur & others; reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484, has held as under: "........ But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. Moreso, when appeal is admitted. Previous history of litigation cannot be overlooked."

9. This Court in the case of Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. through Collector Bijnor & others; reported in 2007 (102) RD 498, has held as under: "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."

10. Para 458 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual provides as under: "458. Speedy Disposal- (1) The court shall endeavour to finally decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of institution of the suit and if the suit is not decided within the period aforesaid, the reason for the same shall be recorded. (2) The appellate or the revisional court shall endeavour to finally decide the appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded."

11. There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within the period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

12. Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned appeal and the application for interim relief, within the period as fixed by this Court.

13. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondents no.3 and 4 is dispensed with.

14. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

15. Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, with a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baberu, District Banda (respondent No.2), before whom the Appeal No. T202407110205962 is pending for disposal, to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

16. It is further directed that the authority concerned shall consider and pass appropriate order on the petitioner's application for interim relief in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav (supra) and by this Court in the case of Ali Sher (supra), strictly in accordance with law, on the next date fixed i.e. 04.06.2025 or within a period of one month thereafter, whichever is earlier.

17. In view of the above, it is provided that till the disposal of the aforesaid application for interim relief, within the stipulated time as mentioned above, status-quo as of today in respect of nature and possession of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties subject to full cooperation by the petitioner in the disposal of the said application for interim relief.

18. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the above-noted appeal.

19. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Arif MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Sri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nand Lal Maurya, learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents are present.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide and consider the stay application along with Appeal No. T202407110205962 filed by the petitioner under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the parties to maintain status quo over the property in dispute."

3. This Court vide order dated 14.05.2025 granted time to learned counsel for the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit to bring on record the order-sheet as well as the status of the pending appeal.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 18.05.2025 annexing therewith the copy of the order-sheet of the appeal having Case No. 5960 of 2024 (Anuradha & others Vs. Meera & others) under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. From the perusal of the order-sheet, it is evident that the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Baberu, District Banda has already fixed the date i.e. 04.06.2025 for hearing on the application for interim relief filed in the aforesaid appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the urgency in the matter is that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are alienating the property in dispute during pendency of the statutory appeal under Section 35(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact that the statutory appeal under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the competent court and during pendency of interim relief application, the respondents are creating third party rights in the property in question that may give complicity to the pending litigation.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav & another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur & others; reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484, has held as under: "........ But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. Moreso, when appeal is admitted. Previous history of litigation cannot be overlooked."

9. This Court in the case of Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. through Collector Bijnor & others; reported in 2007 (102) RD 498, has held as under: "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."

10. Para 458 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual provides as under: "458. Speedy Disposal- (1) The court shall endeavour to finally decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of institution of the suit and if the suit is not decided within the period aforesaid, the reason for the same shall be recorded. (2) The appellate or the revisional court shall endeavour to finally decide the appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded."

11. There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within the period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

12. Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned appeal and the application for interim relief, within the period as fixed by this Court.

13. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondents no.3 and 4 is dispensed with.

14. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

15. Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, with a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baberu, District Banda (respondent No.2), before whom the Appeal No. T202407110205962 is pending for disposal, to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

16. It is further directed that the authority concerned shall consider and pass appropriate order on the petitioner's application for interim relief in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav (supra) and by this Court in the case of Ali Sher (supra), strictly in accordance with law, on the next date fixed i.e. 04.06.2025 or within a period of one month thereafter, whichever is earlier.

17. In view of the above, it is provided that till the disposal of the aforesaid application for interim relief, within the stipulated time as mentioned above, status-quo as of today in respect of nature and possession of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties subject to full cooperation by the petitioner in the disposal of the said application for interim relief.

18. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the above-noted appeal.

19. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Arif MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad