Disposed

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

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2020WRIC/9096/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Uttar Pradesh directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, Prayagraj, to decide a pending application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within six months, strict adherence to procedure, and priority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, Prayagraj to decide the pending case under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within six months with priority.

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9096 of 2020 Petitioner :- Geeta Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Giri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Rajeev Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.D. Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶5

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following relief no. (i) as substantial relief:-

¶6

"(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondent No.2 to decide the application of the applicant/ petitioner filed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 being present Case No. T-202002080400070/ 2019 (Smt. Geeta Devi v. Gaon Sabha and 6 others) within stipulated time period."

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in case if an appropriate direction is issued for expeditious disposal of the pending case 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.

¶8

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2, namely, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Handia, Prayagraj to consider and decide the petitioner's aforesaid case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

Order Date :- 25.11.2020 Atmesh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Devi v. State of U.P. and 8 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

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

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

Shekh Aneesh Vs Board of Revenue and 2 Others

Jairam Vs Additional Moradabad Division and 7 Others