Om Prakash v. Additional Commissioner Administration District Ayodhya and 15 Others

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9880 of 2023 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Administration District Ayodhya And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Vikram Singh,Akshaya Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Pandey,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶1Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 9 which is taken on record.

¶2Heard.

¶3In view of order proposed to be passed, notices to the private respondent(s) is dispensed with.

¶4Present petition has been filed for following main reliefs: "1. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to quash the impugned ex-parte stay order dated 24.08.2023 passed by opposite party No. 01 i.e., Additional Commissioner, Administration, District - Ayodhya in Revision No. 1967/2023. Computerized Case No. C202304000001967 (Ajay Prakash and others Vs Om Prakash and Others), filed under section 210 of U. P. Revenue Code, 2006, related to Gata No. 1054, area 0.0690 Hectare of 1429-1434 Fasli, situated at Village - Ankaripur, Pargana - Amsin, Tahsil Sadar, District Ayodhya, contained as Annexure No. 01 to the writ petition.

¶2Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding opposite party No. 01 to decide the stay vacation applications dated 13.10.2023 filed by Petitioner, contained as Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition.

¶3Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding opposite parties to not create any hinderance in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute."

¶5Taking note of the undisputed fact that interim order is an ex-parte stay order as also that the petitioner has already preferred an application for stay vacation on 13.10.2023 before the revisional authority which is permissible under the law, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.

¶6Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with direction of opposite party no. 1/ Additional Commissioner Administration District Ayodhya to consider and decide the stay vacation application dated

13.10.2023 expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting any adjournment to either party preferably within a period of two months from the next date fixed in the case.

¶7Further, in view of Rule 183(4) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and para 458(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual as also the facts of the present case, as indicated, the opposite party no. 1 is directed to decide the case, in issue, expeditiously say a period of six months from the next date fixed, if possible and if there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 8.11.2023/Mohit Singh/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench