Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59745 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11927 of 2025 Petitioner :- Beni Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jeet Bahadur Singh,Sarveshwar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vibhanshu Vaibhav Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard lerned ocunsel for th petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1, and Sri Vibhanshu Vaibhav, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4. 2. Against the order of demolition dated 28.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.4/Presiding Officer/Secretary, Aligarh Development Authority, Aligarh, the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal before the respondent No.2/Chairman/Commissioner, Aligarh Development Authority Aligarh as provided under Section 27(2) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 being Appeal No.323/2025/06 (Computerized Case No.C202518000000323). The aforesaid appeal was duly entertained by the respondent No.2 and vide order dated 01.03.2025, the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned, the appeal was admitted and records were summoned from the Court below and the next date fixed in the matter was 04.04.2025. It is stated in paragraph 33 of the writ petition that on 04.04.2025, since records were not provided by the Court below, next date was fixed in the matter as 28.04.2025. It is argued that on the one hand, the respondent No.2 has not granted any interim protection in the appeal and on the other hand, the authority of Aligarh Development Authority, Aligarh is trying to demolish the constructions of the petitioner as per demolition order dated 28.11.2024. It is argued that the law is well settled that once the appeal has been admitted, the appellate authority should consider the case for grant of interim protection. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur reported in (1982) 3 SCC 484. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the judgement, relevant portion of the paragraph Nos.3 and 4 which are quoted below:- "3. An appeal from this order was preferred being F. A. F.O. No. Nil. of 1982. We are told that appeal was admitted and notice of motion was taken out for suspension of the Order under appeal. But the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court declined to grant stay. Hence, this appeal by Special Leave Petition. 4. We heard Mr. S.N. Kacker, learned Counsel for the appellants, and the respondents appeared by Caveat through Mr. Manoj Swarup, Advocate. We are not inclined to examine any contention on merits at present, but we would like to take notice of the emerging situation if the operation of the order under appeal is not suspended during the pendency of the appeal. If the F. A.F.O. is allowed, obviously Mool Chand Yadav would be entitled to continue in possession. Now, if the order is not suspended in order to avoid any action in contempt pending the appeal, Mool Chand would have to vacate the room and handover the possession to the respondents in obedience to the Court's order. We are in full agreement with Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned advocate for respondents, that the Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. But if orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Manoj Swarup may be wholly right in submitting that there is intentional flouting of the Court's order. We are not interdicting that finding. But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted." 3. On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent No.2 will decide the interim protection application expeditiously. 4. Heard learned counsel for th parties and perused the record. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit fresh application for grant of interim protection within ten days from today along with certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner do so, the respondent No.2/Chairman/Commissioner, Aligarh Development Authority Aligarh is directed to pass appropriate order on the aforesaid application most expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months thereafter strictly in accordance with law. 6. For a period of four months or till the decision taken on the aforesaid application whichever is earlier, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad