Allahabad High Court
SMT JIYANA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 13 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to decide the pending stay application within eight weeks, thereby granting the mandamus relief sought on that point.
Summary
Petitioners Jiyana and others filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondent to decide a stay application filed in a regular suit concerning land under Section 144 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, and also sought a status‑quo order and protection against third‑party interference. The petitioners argued that the stay application had been pending since 26‑10‑2023 despite multiple dates being fixed. The Court observed that continued delay served no useful purpose and ordered the respondent (No. 3) to decide the stay application expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks of the certified copy of the order, after giving hearing and without unnecessary adjournments. No other relief was granted. The petition was consequently disposed with the specified direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent has a statutory duty under Section 144 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 to decide the pending stay application within a reasonable time.
- Whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to decide the stay application within a stipulated period.
- Whether a status‑quo order or injunction against third‑party interference is warranted pending the outcome of the regular suit.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 144
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- stay application
- section 144
- U.P. Land Revenue Code
- status quo
- property dispute
- court direction
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17676 of 2026
Smt Jiyana And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 13 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aniruddh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief:
" Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the Stay Application filed in regular
suit bearing Case No. 2355 of 2023 and Computerized Case No. T-
20231760202355 (Omkar & others V. Rajendra & others) under section 144
of the UP Land Revenue Code 2006 pending since 26-10-2023 within a
stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
ii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing either of the parties to maintain status quo over the land in
question, during pendency of the regular suit bearing Case No. 2355 of 2023
and Computerized Case No. T-20231760202355 (Omkar & others V.
Rajendra & others) under section 144 of the UP Land Revenue Code 2006.
iii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent nos. 8 to 14 not to create any third party right or
interference/hindrance in the peaceful living of the petitioners in the
property in question bearing Arazi No. 264/0.423 hectares situated at
village Pachmohni Tappa Kudaran, Pargana Bansi, Tehsil Bansi, District
Siddharthnagar, during the pendency of the aforementioned regular suit
bearing Case No. 2355 of 2023 and Computerized Case No. T-
20231760202355 (Omkar & others V. Rajendra & others) under section 144
of the UP Land Revenue Code 2006."
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that stay
WRIC No. 17676 of 2026
2
application filed in aforementioned suit is pending consideration and the
same has not been decided despite several dates have been fixed. He prayed
that the same may be decided, expeditiously.
4. In view of above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this
petition pending.
5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a
direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the stay application
filed in aforementioned suit, in accordance with law, expeditiously,
preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite
parties, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without
granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that
there is no other legal impediment.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 6, 2026
Nitika Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…