Disposed

Nanda @ Ramanand v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2020WRIC/13919/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ proceedings regarding the inaction of the Sub Divisional Officer in delaying partition of agricultural holding under Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules. The single bench directed the Officer to decide the matter expeditiously on fortnightly dates, prescribed costs for adjournments, and directed the State Government to issue compliance instructions.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to conclude pending partition proceedings expeditiously on fortnightly dates; imposing costs of Rs.500/- per day for adjournments; directing State Government to issue comp

Nanda @ Ramanand Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13919 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Nanda @ Ramanand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Kumar Tripathi,Harish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Petitioner is permitted to correct the description of case in the prayer clause.

¶6

Petitioner has instituted proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for partition of agricultural holding in 2018 which has remained pending since then. This petition consequently has been filed stating that though in terms of Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Revenue Code such proceedings are required to be concluded within a period of six months, yet the proceedings are being routinely adjourned either on account of non availability of presiding officer or on account of lawyers strike.

¶7

Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Revenue Code clearly provides that Sub Divisional Officer shall made all endevour to decide the suit within six months and if the suit is not decided within such period then reasons shall be recorded.

¶8

Perusal of the record would go to show that only routine dates are being fixed and even after expiry of six months time the competent authority has not recorded any reason. Such inaction on part of the S.D.M. concerned cannot be approved as the same is clearly contrary to the statutory scheme.

¶9

Learned Standing counsel states that the concerned S.D.M. shall make all endevours to disposed of the matter, expeditiously.

¶10

In that view of the matter this petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the 2nd respondent to take up the matter on priority and to ensure that proceedings are concluded expeditiously keeping in view the provisions contained in Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Revenue Code. The concerned officer shall fix fortnightly dates in the matter and no adjournment would be granted to either of the parties except on payment of cost which shall not be less than Rs.500/- for a day. The S.D.M. shall record specific reasons in the event the

¶11

proceedings are to be adjourned and routine passing of orders would not be approved. The State Government is also directed to issue necessary instructions to the officer concerned for faithful compliance of the statutory requirement contained in Rule 109 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Revenue Code. Copy of this order shall be sent by learned Standing Counsel to the concerned Secretary of the Department concerned for necessary action in light of the above directions.

¶12

The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.9.2020 Abhishek Singh

Nanda @ Ramanand v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanda @ Ramanand v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Verma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rama Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dheerpal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shalini Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Fauzdar Vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretaryand 6 Others