HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 29975 of 2025 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, learned counsel and Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have earlier approached this Court by filing Writ C No.30501 of 2011 (Ram Dayal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 24.05.2011. The order dated 24.05.2011 reads as follows:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners claim that they have perfected their title over the land in dispute for which reliance is placed on certain decrees stated to have been passed in suits filed under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Copies of the said judgments have been filed along with the writ petition. The petitioners contend that the land has been wrongly surplus in the hands of the respondent no.4 under the U.P. Imposition of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Narayan Dutt Shukla, Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Hosila Nand .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. It is further submitted that the petitioners being in lawful possession of the land, cannot be dispossessed without any decision on their objections, which have been filed under Sub-section 2 of Section 11 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, and are still pending. Keeping in view the submissions raised, the Prescribed Authority respondent no.2 is directed to proceed to decide the objections of the petitioners in accordance with law and in the event they are in actual possession, not to dispossess them till such objections are decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 3. It is argued by Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel that the Court below is vacant for several years and on a particular date, i.e., on 30.07.2025 when the petitioner was not present, the objection filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.3/Prescribed Authority (Ceiling)/Additional District Magistrate, Kushinagar without assigning any cogent reason vide its order dated 30.07.2025. The order reads as follows:- 30.07.2025 आज प्रस्तुत हुई। पुकार करायी गयी। आपित्तकतार् उपिस्थत नही है। पत्रावली का अवलोकन िकया. गया। ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य नही है, िजससे आपित्त/बाद की पुिष्ट हो सके । आपित्त/वाद बलहीन होने के कारण िनरस्त िकया जाता है। यिद कोई स्थगन आदेश हो तो उसे वापस िलया जाता है। वाद आवश्यक कायर्वाही पत्रावली दािखल दफ्तर हो। 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, a restoration application has been filed on the same day, i.e., on 30.07.2025 which was also rejected by the Court below vide order dated 08.08.2025. WRIC No. 29975 of 2025 2 While rejecting the restoration application, case was also rejected by the respondent No.3 on merits. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed appeal being Appeal No.C202505000002030 (Hosila Nand Vs. Prescribed Authority and others) as provided under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 before the respondent No.2/Commissioner Gorakhur Division Gorakhpur on 13.08.2025. Along with the aforesaid appeal, an application for grant of interim relief has also been filed. 5. It is argued Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel that considerable time has already been lapsed but till date no decision has been taken on the interim application, therefore, the petitioner is suffering irreparable loss. Hence a prayer has been made to direct the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the stay application expeditiously and till then no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that respondent No.2 will pass appropriate orders on the stay application expeditiously. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 /Commissioner Gorakhur Division Gorakhpur to pass appropriate orders on the stay application most expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 9. For a period of six weeks or till the decision taken on the stay application whichever is earlier, interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2011 will continue. September 9, 2025 saqlain WRIC No. 29975 of 2025 3 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad