Disposed

Ram Shabd v. State of U P and Another

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2021WRIB/2005/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Ram Shabd seeking a mandamus for a time-bound decision on a restoration application pending for over six years with the Settlement Officer, Azamgarh. The Court directed the Officer to decide the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh to decide the restoration application within a period of three months.

Ram Shabd Vs State of U P and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2005 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Shabd Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Suman Kumar Yadav,Moni Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Dr. Suman Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 and 2.

¶6

Record shows that feeling aggrieved by order dated 25.01.1996 passed by respondent-2, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh, petitioner filed a restoration application dated 14.08.2015.

¶7

By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-2, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh to decide Restoration Application No.184 (Ram Shabd Vs. State) filed by petitioner in Reference No.133 (Ram Shabd Vs. State) under Section 122A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in a time bound period.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that inspite of the fact that a period of more than six years has rolled by from the date of filing of afore-mentioned restoration application, same has not been decided till date. Moreover, non-disposal of aforementioned restoration application even after expiry of aforesaid period cannot be said to be justified in any manner. In addition to above, it is also submitted that delay in disposal of restoration application is not attributable to petitioner. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for petitioner submits that interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-2, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh to decide the restoration application filed by petitioner within a time bound period. As such, mandamus as prayed by petitioner is liable to be issued by this Court.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection in case writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent-2, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh to decide the restoration application filed by petitioner.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that no

¶11

useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶12

In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to, respondent-2, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh to decide afore-mentioned restoration application 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 filed by petitioner before respondent-2 in above-mentioned case by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶13

Order Date :- 15.11.2021 Saif

Ram Shabd v. State of U P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Shabd v. State of U P and Another

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

Anchal Vs State of U.P.

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

Lalji Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Bhawan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Lal Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Virendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others