By the Court.—Heard Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are proforma-respondents.

A Supplementary-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner bringing certain facts on record that has been dealt with hereinafter.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a certiorari to quash the Government order dated 13th May, 2001 annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition, whereby the State has issued directives restraining the Collectors/Special Land Acquisition Officers of all districts to withhold disposal of applications filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if in such matters any appeal against the original award is pending before a Higher Court namely the High Court or the Supreme Court. For this the Government order refers to three decisions of the Apex Court namely Babua Ram and others v. State of U.P and another, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of U.P and others, 1995 (2) SCC 689 and 766 respectively. The other judgment referred in the said Government order is that of State of Maharashtra v. Manakchand Pyarmal and others, 1996 (1) SCC 297.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner as urged that even assuming for the sake of arguments, though not admitting, that the said Government order is valid, the facts of the present case do not in any way attract the applicability of the said Government order and consequently, the withholding of the decision on the application of the petitioner filed under Section 28-A is illegal and unjust. Therefore, a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 18th April, 2006 passed by the respondent No. 1, Annexure 2 to the writ petition.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition certain interim directions were issued whereupon a fresh order has been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 28th June, 2017, copy whereof has been filed and annexed as Annexure S.A-2 to the supplementary-affidavit. The said order is also to the same effect that in view of the directives as contained in the Government order dated 13th June, 2001, it will not be appropriate to proceed to hear the application filed by the petitioner that shall be disposed of only after the decision of the appeal that is pending against the award before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, the facts are different inasmuch as in paragraph No. 19, the petitioner has categorically stated that First Appeal No. 140 of 1991 (defective) State of U.P. v. Jag Mohan, has been filed against the award in the reference proceedings delivered by the Court below. But the said appeal has been abated in the absence of any substitution of the heirs of the respondent in the appeal. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed as on date and therefore neither the judgments of the Apex Court as referred to hereinabove nor the Government order would apply on the facts of the present case.

6. It is further urged that the mere pendency of a recall application for setting aside the abatement in the said appeal would not denude the petitioner of his right to get his application under Section 28-A adjudicated, inasmuch as, there cannot be a prohibition in law restraining the authority from performing his statutory duty. For this, learned counsel has relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge in the Case of Jangi Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2007 (4) AWC 3598, that has followed a full Bench decisions of this Court in the case of Shakal Singh v. Smt. Devi, AIR 1979 All 274, to hold that unless the application that has been moved for setting aside or recalling of a final order is allowed, the mere pendency of such an application will not have the effect of proceedings having been reopened or pending. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the mere pendency of the application for setting aside the abatement in the appeal refe