A writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking directions to decide a pending land revenue application under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was dismissed because the petitioner was already approaching the Board of Revenue. The Court held that no interference was called for at that stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10549 of 2019
Petitioner :- Vindu Gopal Tripathi Respondent :- Sub Divisional Officer And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.
This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhanpur, District Basti to decide the case No. 13 computerized No.T201817140200844 (Vindu Gopal Tripathi Vs. Jokhu and others) under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code of Land Revenue Act, which is pending since 24.12.2007 before him within stipulated period.
ii) issue any other writ, order or direction in suitable nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
iii) award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner"
It is contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhanpur, District Basti is not deciding the Case No. 13 filed by the petitioner under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act despite the direction of the Board of Revenue on 23.1.2017 by which the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent no. 1, was directed to decide the case within three months. It has been stated in the writ petition in paragraph no. 9 that since the respondent no. 1 was not deciding the application of the petitioner under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, he had filed a contempt application before the Board of Revenue in which notice was issued but nothing thereafter has been done.
Since the petitioner is already pursuing the matter before the Board of Revenue, no interference in this writ petition is called for at this stage and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2019 A. V. Singh
(Jayant Banerji, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in a writ petition where the petitioner is already pursuing the matter before the Board of Revenue regarding inaction under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vindu Gopal Tripathi
Sub Divisional Officer
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
