Allowed

Indrawat Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2021WRIB/1971/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition under Article 226, directing the Consolidation Officer, Gopalpur, District Gorakhpur, to decide pending cases filed in 2014 under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act within three months without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-2 to decide pending cases filed in 2014 within three months without unnecessary adjournment.

Indrawat Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1971 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Indrawat Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sanjay Maurya, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents- 1 and 2.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-2, Consolidation Officer, Gopalpur, District Gorakhpur to decide Case Nos.9 of and 10 filed in the year 2014 under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that afore-mentioned cases was filed by petitioner in the year 2014. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 7 years has rolled by from the date of filing of above mentioned cases, same has not been decided till date. Moreover, non-disposal of afore-mentioned cases even after expiry of aforesaid period cannot be said to be justified in any manner. He further submits that delay in disposal of above mentioned cases cannot be attributed to petitioner. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-2 to decide above mentioned cases within the time period fixed by this Court. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for by petitioner is liable to be issued by this Court.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 and 2 and upon perusal of material brought on record, this court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶10

In view of above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to, respondent-2, Consolidation Officer, Gopalpur, District Gorakhpur to decide afore-mentioned cases, with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy/computer generated copy of this order, which shall be

¶11

filed by petitioner in above mentioned cases by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.11.2021 Saif

Indrawat Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrawat Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Komal Vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary Department of Revenue and 3 Others

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

Mithai Lal Vs State of U.P. and 19 Others

Geeta Devi Vs State of U P and 9 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Imran Ahmad Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others