Raja Ram and Another vs Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad and Others

Hon''ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—In the morning a request was made for taking up the aforesaid writ petition on priority basis out of turn. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 informed the petitioner''s counsel in writing of the above request being made in writing which is taken on record.

The case has been called out. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. Heard Sri R.S. Kushwaha, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 on the stay vacation application.

Respondent No. 5 was admitted to the Gaon Sabha land vide resolution dated 20.7.1991, which was approved on 7.12.1991. The petitioner applied under 198 (4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act for cancelation of the aforesaid allotment. The application was rejected on 4.1.2001. Against the said order the petitioner preferred revision No. 54 of 2001 before the Additional Commissioner. He simultaneously filed another revision No. 98/2009 before the Board of Revenue, concealing the fact of filing a revision before the Additional Commissioner. The revision before the Board of Revenue was dismissed and against the said order he filed the present writ petition, wherein interim order of status quo has been passed on 12.10.09. Thereafter he filed an application before the Additional Commissioner for withdrawing revision No. 54 of 2001, which was allowed on 11.10.2010.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that the petitioner has filed two revisions simultaneously against the order dated 11.1.2001, one before the Additional Commissioner and other directly before the Board of Revenue. Secondly his application for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner stands rejected by the courts below.

On the other hand persuant to the allotment order dated 20.7.1991, respondent No. 5 was put in the possession of the land as stated in paragraph 4-B of the counter affidavit. It has not been denied. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to show that respondent No. 5 had not come in possession of the land. In view of the above, when it is clear on record that respondent No. 5 is in possession, the petitioner had no right to interfere with his possessions. The order of status-quo dated 12.10.2009 is creating difficulties and giving a handle to the petitioner to disturb the possession of respondent No. 5..

Accordingly, stay order dated 12.12.2009 is vacated and the stay vacation application is allowed.