JAGMOHAN v. THE STATE OF THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE U.P. AND 9 OTHERS
WRIC/12755/2025 · 2025-05-04
Manish Kumar Nigam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 48975 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 48975 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70763 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12755 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jagmohan Respondent :- The State Of Through Principal Secretary, Revenue U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Garg Counsel for Respondent :- Achal Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to stay the Ex-parte order dated 12.02.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3 in Case No. RST/590 of 2024 As Computer Case No. T202407110200590, Pushparaj Versus Jagmohan & Others under section 116 of 2006 and U.P. Revenue code 2006 and order dated 10.02.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3 in Restoration case no. 550 of 2025 as Computer case no. T202507110200550, Pushparaj Versus Jagmohan & Others under Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code 2006, and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham Mandal Banda in revision No. 349 of 2025 as Computer Case no. C-202507000000349 Jagmohan Versus Pushparaj And others Under section 210 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and further kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to not disposes from the disputed land to the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 26.03.2025, in the ends of justice, so that justice may be done. ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS Commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 to decide revision no. 349 of 2025 Jagmohan Versus Pushparaj and others under section 210 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 in accordance with law within some stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court till then restrained to the respondent no. 3 to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner, otherwise the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss, in the ends of justice so that justice may be done." 3.Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an ex-
parte order dated 12.02.2024 has been passed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner filed a restoration application, which has been dismissed by order dated 10.02.2025. Against the said orders, the petitioner filed a revision along with a stay application. The stay application has also been rejected by
order dated 24.03.2025 by the Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal Banda. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the revision, on 26.03.2025, the Sub- Divisional Officer has passed an order for taking possession in pursuance of judgment and decree passed in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It has been further contended by counsel for the petitioner that till disposal of the revision, possession may not be changed as it will cause irreparable loss to the petitioner.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending and a direction be issued to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the revision in a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.
5. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No. 2- Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal Banda, to consider and decide the revision filed by the petitioner bearing Revision No. 349 of 2025, Computer Case no. C-202507000000349, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this
order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment.
6. Till the disposal of revision, parties are directed to maintain status quo.
7. It is made clear that petitioner will co-operate with the disposal of revision and will not seek any undue adjournment in the matter to keep the proceedings pending and in case, the petitioner seeks unnecessary adjournment, the interim order granted by this Court shall stand automatically vacated.
Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad