Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67705 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12272 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt Mahdeiya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 27 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Suraj Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. 2. Notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha has been accepted by Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners has challenged the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Administration) III, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur-respondent No.2 passed in appeal No. 2247 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. C202405000002247) [Smt. Mahdeiya and another Vs. Motilal and others] under Section 331 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that private respondents No. 5 to 11 have filed a suit under Section 229 B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. In the aforesaid suit, petitioner along with other original tenure holders (vendors) put in their appearance and submitted their reply. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Tehsil Barhaj, Deoria-respondent No.3 without taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case and by completely ignoring the evidence as was available on record, passed the order dated 30.10.2024 and allowed the aforesaid suit. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.10.2024, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 331(3) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which was numbered as Appeal No. 2247 of 2024. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that along with the said appeal petitioners also filed an application for interim relief. 5. It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent no. 3, vide order dated 27.01.2025, admitted the said appeal but rejected the prayer for interim protection, without assigning any cogent reason. He further submits that the petitioners are in possession over the land in question and under the garb of the impugned order, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is settled law that once an appeal or revision is entertained by the appellate 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. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the instant case, the learned appellate court has rejected the application for interim relief in a most casual manner without recording any valid reason. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Mool Chand Yadav and another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. and others reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484 and the Judgments passed by this Court in case of Ali Sher Vs. State of U.P. through Collector Bijnor & others reported in 2007 (102) RD 498 and in the case of Mahesh Sharma (Since Deceased) and Another Vs. Union of India and two others passed in Matter under Article 227 No. 6427 of 2022 dated 20.09.2022. 8. Shri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents has opposed the present writ petition. He submits that the learned Appellate Court has rejected the prayer for interim relief as claimed by the petitioners after taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case. The reasons for declining to grant the interim protection is evident from the impugned order and, as such, the present writ petition is not sustainable at this stage. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 10. This Court, after taking into consideration the arguments as advanced by the learned counsels finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court insofar as it relates to the rejection of the application for interim relief is concerned is not a reasoned order as it does not reflect any cogent ground for rejecting the prayer for interim relief. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order insofar as it relates to the rejection of the interim relief to the petitioners is concerned, the same is hereby set-aside to that extent only. 12. In view of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the private respondents No. 5 to 28 is dispensed with. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Appellate Court to consider afresh the petitioners' application for interim relief filed along with the aforesaid pending appeal and pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the next date fixed in the said appeal or otherwise within a maximum period of two months from the date a certified copy of this court is produced before the court concerned. 14. It is further provided that the petitioners shall positively cooperate with the said proceeding and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments. 15. In the interest of justice, it is provided that status quo as exists today in respect of the nature and possession of the property shall be maintained by the parties for a period of two months or till the disposal of the aforesaid application for interim relief, whichever is earlier. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Karan Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad