Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15126 of 2018 Petitioner :- Arjun Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents. Shri Mahesh Narain Singh has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 23.01.2018 passed by Upper Ziladhikari (Judicial), Bulandshahar in Case No.06/2017 Computerized Case No.D02013111700116 (State v. Chandan Singh & Ors.) under Section 198 (4) UPZA & LR Act Mauja Hajratpur, Pargana and Tehsil Shikarpur, Distt. Bulandshahar.
At the very outset, Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that against the order impugned the petitioner has got alternative remedy to file revision and as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that initially proceeding under Section 198 of UPZA & LR Act has been initiated against the petitioner and the matter travelled upto Board of Revenue. Finally the Board of Revenue has remitted back the matter before the competent authority to decide the matter afresh. But the order impugned has been passed on the same terms and the initial order has been reiterated. As such it is requested that the matter may not be relegated to the revisional authority again. It is also contended that there is every apprehension that meanwhile the petitioner may be evicted from the land in question and as such this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.
Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition on the ground that the order impugned has been passed on merit after hearing and giving ample opportunity to the petitioner and as such no interference is required in the matter.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find substance in the objection raised by learned Standing Counsel that against the order impugned the petitioner has got alternative remedy to file revision.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case petitioner files revision within two weeks from today along with stay application, this Court hope and trust that the revisional authority will decide the stay application in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The revisional authority would also make an endeavour to decide the revision expeditiously. Till the disposal of stay application or for a period of fourth months, whichever is earlier, status quo as on today shall be maintained by the parties qua the disputed property.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 SP/