Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20530 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Nageena Respondent :- Commissioner, Azamgarh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Om Prakash Pandey,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents; Shri R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha and Shri Navin Krishna, learned counsel for the caveator.
Petitioner before this Court is assailing the validity of order dated 21.05.2018 passed by Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh in Revision no.320/2018 Computer Case no.C201815000000320 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Nagina) wherein the order passed under Section 123(1) of UPZA&LR Act 1950 was stayed.
Record in question reflects that petitioner has earlier approached to this Court by preferring Writ Petition no.44535/2017 (Ram Nagina vs. Commisioner, Azamgarh Division and others) assailing the validity of order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Revisional Authority by which the said revision was allowed and the order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was set aside. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with an observation that petitioner has liberty to raise his grievance before the Sub Divisional Officer concerned and the Authority concerned was directed to decide the claim set up by the petitioner in accordance with law. It appears that in response thereof, the order dated 11.05.2018 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Lalganj, Azamgarh, wherein the earlier order dated 20.08.2014 passed under Section 123(1)UPZA&LR Act 1950 was approved. This much is also reflected that the said order has been assailed by the State by preferring Revision no.320/2018 wherein the order impugned has been passed staying the effect and operation of order dated 11.05.2018 and as such, the petitioner is before this Court.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner states that Advocates are abstaining in the Commissioner's Court and there is grave urgency in the matter as half construction has been done and top of the roof is still to be constructed and as such, request has been made that even at the risk of his own, the petitioner may be permitted to raise construction and finally complete the same.
On the other hand, Shri Navin Krishna, Advocate appearing for caveator has raised a preliminary objection that in the said proceeding the caveator namely Chandra Prakash has not been arrayed as respondent, whereas he has locus in the matter and as such before finalization of the said proceeding, he may also be heard in the matter.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and as such, the Writ Petition is disposed of asking the Revisional Authority to decide the revision in question expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties except upon payment of cost and in case Shri Chandra Prakash has any grievance that may be heard in the said proceeding, he is at liberty to move impleadment application before the Authority concerned.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 A. Pandey