AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
18 paragraphs · 328 wordsAugustine George Masih, J
Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from dispossessing them from
the land in question during the pendency of the appeal, along with which an application dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure P-2) has been preferred,
challenging the ex parte order dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Barala, directing their eviction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the ex parte order, which has been passed by the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Barala, has
been challenged by the petitioners by way of a statutory appeal, which is pending before the Collector, District Ambala â€" respondent No.2 along
with an application for stay. The application for stay is not being decided by the Appellate Authority and has been adjourned to 12.03.2021 and in the
meanwhile, the process is being expedited to dispossess the petitioners. This, the counsel contends, would amount to virtually rendering the appeal of
the petitioners infructuous.
Learned counsel for the State acknowledges the fact that the appeal has been preferred by the petitioners and is pending for 12.03.2021 along with an
application for stay.
That being so, the present writ petition is disposed of with directions to the Collector, District Ambala â€" respondent No.2 to consider and decide at
least the application for stay on 12.03.2021 and if on the said date, for some reasons, the same is not decided, the same shall be decided within a
further period of two weeks.
Status quo with regard to possession, as it exists today, shall be maintained till the decision is taken on the application for stay by the Appellate
Authority i.e. Collector, District Ambala â€" respondent No.2.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and has only proceeded to give a direction in the light of the
facts and circumstances of the case as projected and recorded above.