Allahabad High Court
DEEN DAYALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Holding
The court declined to interfere with the interim order but directed that the appeal be decided within three months, with short dates fixed.
Summary
The petitioner, Deen Dayal, filed a writ petition challenging an interim order dated 02‑07‑2026 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Judicial in Appeal No. 1172 of 2026 (Shyamveer et al. v. Deen Dayal et al.) under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner sought to set aside the interim order and also prayed for a speedy disposal of the appeal. The High Court held that, given the nature of the interim order—maintaining status‑quo over the disputed property—the court would not interfere with it. However, the court entertained the second prayer and directed the concerned court to decide the appeal within three months, fixing short dates on a fortnightly basis and ensuring full hearing. The order was made subject to cooperation of the parties and their lawyers. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with directions for expedited disposal of the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the interim order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Judicial under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
- Whether the writ petition can compel the concerned court to decide the appeal within a specified time frame.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 207
Subjects
- writ petition
- interim order
- Section 207
- U.P. Revenue Code
- speedy disposal
- property dispute
- status quo
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 34338 of 2026
Deen Dayal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suresh Dhar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.
2. Though grievance of the writ petitioner is that the Additional
Commissioner, Judicial has wrongly granted interim order dated
02.07.2026 in Appeal No.1172 of 2026 (Computerized Case
No.T202612000001172) (Shyamveer and others v. Deen Dayal and
others), which order has been assailed by means of this petition, however,
considering the nature of the impugned order whereby statutory appeal
under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was heard at initial
stage and parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of
property in dispute, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned
interim order.
3. At the same time, considering the second prayer made in the writ
petition and the fact that the petitioner is the sole respondent in the
concerned appeal and is duly represented, the petition is disposed of
directing the court concerned to decide the aforesaid appeal within a
period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced
before it by fixing short dates, preferably, on fortnight basis, strictly in
WRIC No. 34338 of 2026
2
accordance with law and after providing full opportunity of hearing to the
parties to the appeal.
4. This order is, however, subject to cooperation by the parties and their
lawyers.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
September 8, 2026
Jyotsana
Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…