HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17654 of 2026 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Shri Abhijeet Mukherji, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: “I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities not to take any coercive steps including recovery proceedings, attachment of bank accounts, attachment of movable or immovable properties, or any other coercive action against the Petitioner pursuant to the Judgement and Order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the District Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar which is under challenge in Appeal no. 022/2025 Computerized case no. ME20252799382, till the decision of the said Statutory Appeal pending before the Board of Revenue / Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Uttar Pradesh in which at present judgement is reserved;. II. To issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court made deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The only point which has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, during the pendency of the appeal under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the respondent-Authorities may be directed not to take coercive steps. On a pointed query as to whether any stay application has been moved by the petitioner before the appellate Authority, he has brought to the notice of the court a letter which has been addressed to the District Magistrate, requesting him to keep the proceedings in abeyance. He has further submitted that the judgment has already been reserved in the aforesaid matter. 4. However, he has submitted that though the judgment is reserved, and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhijeet Mukherji Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S The Delhi Flour Mills Company Limited .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the appellate Authority is available only on two working days, there is likelihood of delay in the delivery of judgment, and in the meantime, the Collector is pressing for the recovery and threatening to seize the bank account of the petitioner. 5. He further submits that there is every likelihood that petitioner shall succeed in the appeal, in which the judgment has been reserved. However, he has limited his prayer to the extent that till the delivery of judgment, the respondent-Authorities may be directed not to take any coercive steps in pursuance of the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the respondent no.3. 6. The learned Standing Counsel has not denied the fact that the appellate Authority only sits on two working days and since the judgment has been reserved, the petitioner is not in a position to move a stay application; and to which the petitioner submits that in such circumstances he was left with no other option but to approach the respondent no.3. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent no.3- District Collector, Tehsil Sadar, Collectorate Surajpur, Gautam Budh Nagar, is requested not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, till the delivery of the judgment in Appeal No. 022 of 2025. 8. With the aforesaid observations and direction the writ petition stands disposed off. May 6, 2026 Sumit K. WRIC No. 17654 of 2026 2 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad