Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1583 of 2023

Petitioner :- Ramayan Prasad And Another

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation /Chief Revenue Officer And 4

Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Chandra Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Mr. Lal Chandra Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing

Counsel for the State-respondents.

The instant writ petition has been filed for mandamus commanding the respondent

No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer Mirzapur to decide

the stay application filed in revison No.651 of 2023 and till disposal of the

application interim protection be granted.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that against the order passed by appellate

court dated 06.02.2023 in the title proceeding, the revison filed under Section 48 of

U.P.C.H. Act along with the stay application is pending before the respondent No.1.

Copy of the grounds of revision, stay application as well as order sheet have been

annexed as Annexure Nos.2 and 1 respectively to the writ petition in order to

demonstrate that the case is not proceeding expeditiously.

Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgement 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 if order under appeal/ revision has

serious civil consequences, then operation of the order must be suspended during

the pendency of the appeal/ revision.

In order to appreciate the controversy, the perusal of paragraph No.20 of the writ

petition is relevant which is as follows:

"20.That although the petitioners had filed revision before the

respondent No.1 but general date has been fixed as 27.03,2023,

thereafter 15.04.2023, but considering practice developed in the court

of deputy director of consolidation no interim protection granted if no

interim order before the court below and the village pradhan is bent

upon to demolish the pakka construction and destroying the trees

standing over the said plots no.1153, hence in view of law laid down by

this Hon'ble Court reported in 1994 (1) UPLBEC 374 (Zahoor Ahmad

Vs. Commissioner and others) and the judgment dated 23.11.2021 the

parties be directed to maintain the status quo till the decision on

interim relief. A true copy of direction dated 23.11.2021 are being

annexed hereby with and marked as Annexure No.13 to the writ

petition. "

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that petitioners' revision is

pending before the revisional court as petitioner should approach the revisional

court for the redressal of their grievance.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

There is no dispute about the fact that title revision filed by the petitioners along

with stay application is pending before the respondent No.1.

This Court in case of Ali Sher (Supra) has held as under in paragraph Nos.4 and 5

of the judgment:

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 dispose 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."

In view of ratio of law laid down by this Court in Ali Sher (Supra), the i