SHAHINA SIDDIQI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.3 & 4, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents no.1 & 2 and perused the record.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the interim order dated 6.12.2019 passed by the District Magistrate in a pending appeal under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 on the ground that in spite of the caveat being reported, a copy of the memo of appeal being asked for, the respondent District Magistrate-appellate authority has proceeded to pass an interim order.

(3.) From the perusal of the order initially passed by the Municipal authorities and subsequently the stay order in appeal we find that there is a serious contest of title between the petitioner and respondent no.5, who are also litigating the matter in? a pending civil suit.