Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1049 (ALL)

Ram Bahadur v. Commissioner

2014-04-01

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri R.C. Singh for the petitioner and Sri Amaresh Sinha for the respondents.. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 26.2.2014 passed in Ceiling Appeal No.5/K/2010 filed by the allottees of the surplus land, by which the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and the operation of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 18.2.2010 has been stayed. 3. It appears that the proceeding under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was initiated against Smt. Shyama Devi. According to the petitioner, plot nos.266, area 1.32 acre and plot no.908, area 0.10 acre situated in village Mathia Alam, tappa Naugawa, pargana Sidhua Jobna, district Kushinagar were not the subject matter of the ceiling proceeding. However, inadvertently in CLH Form 5 relating to surplus land these plots were included. According to the contesting respondents the land in dispute was declared as surplus land by the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 3.11.1989 and possession over the surplus land was taken and it was allotted to the contesting respondents. 4. The petitioner filed an application before the Prescribed Authority under Section 144 C.P.C. for restoring the entry of his name over the land in dispute. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 18.2.2010 directed for restoring the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute. Against the aforesaid order Appeal No.5/K/2010 was filed by the respondents, who are allottees of the land in dispute, in which delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and the operation of the order of the Prescribed Authority has been stayed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a long delay in filing the appeal and there was no satisfactory explanation of the inordinate delay but the Commissioner has condoned the delay without recording any reason about the sufficiency of the cause. He further submits that the Prescribed Authority has found that the possession over the land in dispute was never taken even then the operation of the order of the Prescribed Authority was stayed. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. 7. He further submits that the Prescribed Authority has found that the possession over the land in dispute was never taken even then the operation of the order of the Prescribed Authority was stayed. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. 7. So far as the condonation of delay is concerned, as the contesting respondents had taken the plea that no notice was issued to them by the Prescribed Authority and it is only on coming to know about the order of the Prescribed Authority, the appeal was filed, therefore, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay and this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter of condoning the delay in exercise of power under writ jurisdiction. 8. So far as the interim order staying the operation of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is concerned, the counsel for the contesting respondents submits that since the order of the Prescribed Authority is an excutable order and the appeal was admitted, its operation was validly stayed. However, the contention of the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority found that the petitioner was not dispossessed from the land in dispute as such on the basis of interim order the contesting respondents may create hindrance in the possession of the petitioner. Since the finding of the Prescribed Authority is sub-judice in appeal, at this stage it will not be appropriate for this Court to record any finding in respect of the possession of the parties. However, during the pendency of the appeal the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to their possession over the land in dispute as on today. 9. It is imperative for the Commissioner to decide the appeal expeditiously. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said authority. The parties undertake to cooperate in the matter and will not take unnecessary adjournments.