Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1871 (ALL)

Abdul Aziz v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2018-08-27

RAJIV JOSHI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 3. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.8.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar, whereby interim protection was granted to the respondents and the effect and operation of the order dated 7.7.2018 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was stayed. 4. The record reveals that objection was filed by the petitioner under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act for expunging the forged entry in favour of respondent no.4. The respondent also filed objection for continuance of the said entry in the revenue record. Vide order dated 6.5.2015, the objection filed by the petitioner was also dismissed and entry in respect of disputed land in the name of respondent no.5 was directed to be continued. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 7.7.2018. Against that order, revision was filed, in which the application for interim relief was filed as in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, petitioner started proceeding under Rule 109A of the U.P.C.H. Rules, 1954 for implementation of the said order and therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 16.8.2018, stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 7.7.2018 and fixed 23.8.2018 for final hearing. 5. The order impugned is totally interlocutory in nature. The writ petition against the said order is not at all maintainable. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the garb of impunged order, respondents are trying to alienate the property and also raising construction. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents denied the said fact and stated that they are not raising any construction over the same and not creating any third party interest over the land in dispute. 8. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, since, they are not alienating the disputed property even not raising construction, parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the nature of land and for its alienation. 9. 8. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, since, they are not alienating the disputed property even not raising construction, parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the nature of land and for its alienation. 9. Since, the matter is an old one, therefore, direction is issued to respondent no.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar to decide the revision as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, writ petition stands disposed of.