Roopchand vs Member, Board of Revenue, Circuit Court and Others

Vikram Nath, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 154, read with Sections 166 and 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The trial Court dropped the proceedings. Against the same a revision was filed by the State, which was allowed by the Commissioner and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision, in the light of the observations contained in the order. Against the same the Petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. By the impugned order the Board of Revenue has admitted the revision and summoned the record of the trial Court. In the meantime while deciding the stay application filed by the Petitioner, the Board of Revenue directed that the Collector may take possession from the Petitioner of the land in dispute, however, with a rider that the State shall not allot, transfer or make constructions with regard to the land in dispute. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the interim direction issued by the Board of Revenue, directing the Collector to take possession.

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as on date there is no final order against the Petitioner for holding that the land shall vest with the State under Sections 166/167 of the Act. According to him the proceedings are yet to be finally decided and as such the direction to take possession would amount to the proceedings having attained finality and would result into irreparable loss to the Petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in the opinion of the Court, the direction of the Board of Revenue to the Collector to take possession is not warranted. The ends of justice would be best served by directing the Board of Revenue to decide the revision of the Petitioner on merits, in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. For a period of seven months or till the disposal of the revision, whichever is earlier, the Petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. It is further provided that for the same period, as mentioned above, the effect and operation of the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner dated 6.10.2010 shall remain stayed.

The writ petition stands disposed of as above.