Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26185 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt Ajijun Nisha Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narayan Dutt Shukla,Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assited by Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, learned counsel and Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2.The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter-alia with the following prayer:- i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.2 to decide the appeal No. C20250500000175 of 2025 Smt. Ajijun Nisha Vs. Prescribed Authority arising out of order dated 26.09.2024 passed by Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) / Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) in case No. 3011 of 2016 computerised No. D201605440003011 and stay application thereon. 3. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel that earlier when the objection submitted by the petitioner as provided under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceilling of of Land Holdings Act, 1960 was not decided, the petitioner preferred Writ C No.2171 of 2020 before this Court which was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench vide judgement order dated 11.02.2020 which reads as follows:- Petitioner claims to be in possession of the land that forms subject matter of proceedings under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 in respect of Plot No. 709, area 5.06 acre situated in Village Kurmaul @ Sohanpur Tappa Bansi Chirgoda, Pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, Tehsil Padrauna, District Kushinagar. It is submitted that petitioner filed his objection under Section 11(2) of the aforesaid Act before the Prescribed Authority/respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that though some proceedings have been conducted pursuant to the aforesaid objection, however, no final order has yet been passed. In such circumstances, it has been asserted in paragraph no. 17 of the writ petition that the respondents are trying to take forcible possession of the aforesaid land during the pendency of the objection. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Dilbagh Singh Vs State of UP and another, 1978 RD 230 wherein it has been held that a tenure holder in possession, may not be dispossessed during pendency of his objection. Further reliance has been placed on numerous orders passed by different Benches of this Court applying the aforesaid principle. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending any further and hence the writ petition is finally disposed off with the direction to the Prescribed Authority/Respondent no. 2 to ensure that the objection filed by the petitioner dated 25.10.2014, if the same are pending, may be decided by a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after affording due opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties. For a period of two months or till the decision is made by the Prescribed Authority, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid, now decision has been taken in the matter by the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling)/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) on 26.09.2024. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred Appeal before the respondent No.2 which was numbered as Appeal No.C20250500000175 of 2025 Smt. Ajijun Nisha Vs. Prescribed Authority. It is argued that on the one hand the respondent No.2/Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur was not passing any order and on the other hand, the respondents are trying to disposes the petitioner from her holding. It is argued that considerable time has already been lapsed and made a prayer to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the aforesaid appeal expeditiously. 5. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the respondent No.2 will decide the aforesaid appeal expeditiously. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent No.2/Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur is directed to decide the aforesaid appeal most expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but after providing opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties. 7. For a period of four months or till the decision taken in the appeal whichever is earlier, parties are directed to status quo as on date today. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad