Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36090 of 2018 Petitioner :- Baramdeen Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Diwakar Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel. Shri Diwakar Singh appears for Gaon Sabha.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 27.7.2018 passed by Addl. District Collector (Finance and Revenue) Distt. Kaushambi in Case No.382 of 2017-18 (Computer Case No.D2017024201002) (State v. Baramdeen) under Section 128 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 and for a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from Khata No.664 Araji No.1110M/0.228 Hect. situated in Village Gauspur Tikari, Manjhanpur.
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that against the proceeding, which has been finalised under Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "the Code") the petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy to prefer revision under Section 210 of the Code and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the interim order so accorded by this Court dated 1.8.2018 passed in Writ-C No.26033 of 2018 (Shiv Bhawan & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.), wherein the Court has formulated the question for consideration as to whether after the Pattedars had become bhumidhar with transferable rights, could the pattas be cancelled. Similar question has also been posed in Writ Petition No.19853 of 2018 (Jagdish & Ors. v. State of U.P.). In this backdrop, the Court vide order dated 1.8.2018 while inviting counter affidavit has passed interim order staying the operation of the order impugned in that writ petition. As such it is contended that as similar controversy has also been raised in this writ petition, similar benefit may also be extended to the petitioner in this writ petition also.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find substance in the objection raised by learned Standing Counsel. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that in case any such revision is preferred along with stay application within three weeks, the revisional authority would proceed to decide the stay application of the said revision within three months thereafter, but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stake holders in the matter. For a period of four months or till the disposal of stay application, whichever is earlier, parties shall maintain status quo as on today qua the disputed property.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 SP/