Disposed

Rameshwar Dayal Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2020WRIC/18746/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to decide a grievance regarding a Khasara entry timely. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to decide the matter within six months with strict procedural compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner's grievance as expeditiously as possible within six months.

Rameshwar Dayal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18746 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rameshwar Dayal Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ved Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following substantial reliefs:-

¶7

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to comply the order dated 8.9.2020 passed by the S.D.M. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur (Contained as Annexure No.-6 to this writ petition).

¶8

(ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to paimise the khasara No.- 913 situated in the villageTilhar, Tehsil- Tilhar, District- Shahjahanpur."

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in case if an appropriate direction is issued for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner in a time bound period strictly in accordance with law and by fully complying with the procedure prescribed for under the relevant Act and the Rules.

¶10

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent to consider and decide the petitioner's grievance as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶11

It is clarified that the procedure prescribed for conducting such proceedings, shall be religiously complied with and priority shall be fixed in the order in which other pending proceedings, if any, have been expedited by this Court in the past.

¶12

The copy of the order available on official website of this Court shall be treated to be genuine one, however, as and when the certified copy of the order is issued, the same shall also be submitted before the competent authority.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.11.2020 Atmesh

Rameshwar Dayal Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Dayal Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Nanhe Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sarita Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shekh Aneesh Vs Board of Revenue and 2 Others

Jairam Vs Additional Moradabad Division and 7 Others