Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 61628 (ALL)

SHIV SHANKAR LAL AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

WRIC/16673/2025 · 2025-05-29

Manish Kumar Nigam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93295 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16673 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Lal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Lal Yadav,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pawankumar Dubey 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:- "A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by Respondent no.2 in Appeal No. 618 of 2025 under Section 207 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby the interim order previously granted vide order dated 03.04.2025 has been set aside. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent no.2 to pass appropriate order so that the construction of Petrol Pump may be halted during the pendency of the appeal No. 618 of 2025 before the Respondent no.2." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order dated 20.03.2025 has been passed against the petitioner in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against which the petitioner filed an appeal which is still pending. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the appeal the respondent no. 2 has passed an order dated 06.05.2025 setting aside the interim order granted earlier vide order dated 03.04.2025 in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that during pendency of the appeal, the respondents are continuously trying to construct a petrol pump over the land in dispute. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending and respondent no. 2 be directed to decide the appeal in a time frame as may be directed by this Court. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned appeal filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties and 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. It is further provided that till the disposal of the appeal, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo and the petitioner will cooperate in disposal of the appeal and will not seek any undue adjournment to linger on the proceedings. 7. It is made clear that in case, an attempt is being made by the petitioner to linger on the proceedings, the interim protection granted by this Court, shall automatically stand vacated. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad