Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9115 (ALL)

KAILASH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 13 OTHERS

WRIC/1976/2025 · 2025-02-16

Manish Kumar Nigam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21986 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1976 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kailash And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shriprakash Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer: "i. a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.9.2024 passed by respondent No. 2 in Case No. 1185 of 2024 Computer Case No. C202405000001185 (Smt. Sanyogita Devi and others Vs. Kailash and others) under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed on 06.07.2024 by the contesting respondents (Annexure No. 1). 3. In this writ petition, order under challenge is an order passed by the appellate court in proceedings under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, admitting the appeal and directing the parties to maintain status quo. 4. Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an application for vacating the interim order granted by the appellate court. 5. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain the instant petition. 6. 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 that in case, the petitioner moves an appropriate application for vacating the interim order which is impugned in the writ petition, the same shall be decided after hearing all the concerned parties, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from filing the application by the petitioner. It is further directed to respondent no. 2 to decide the appeal itself, preferably within a period of six 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. Order Date :- 17.2.2025/Ved Prakash Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad