Disposed

Nurulhoda Ansari v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2021WRIC/10284/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction for the rapid disposal of a pending restoration application regarding an appeal dismissed in default under the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. A three-month time frame was fixed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the restoration application strictly in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Nurulhoda Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10284 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Nurulhoda Ansari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mani Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mani Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Notice need not to be issued to respondent nos. 3 to 10, at this stage.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 (Additional Commissioner (Administration), Allahabad Division, Allahabad) to decide restoration application dated 18.01.2018 in Appeal No. C201702001417 (Ram Achhaiber vs. Nurulhoda Ansari) u/s 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act within stipulated period, which may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶8

It is contended that proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. was decided on 12.07.2017 and an appeal was filed. The said appeal was dismissed in default and a restoration application was filed on 18.01.2018, which is pending consideration before respondent no. 2. The sole prayer is for early disposal of the application.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel does not oppose the limited prayer so made for early disposal of the application.

¶10

As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, with the consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of at this stage without calling for counter affidavit, with a direction upon respondent no. 2 to decide the restoration application of the petitioner, if there is no legal impediment and after hearing all the concerned parties, strictly in accordance with law by reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court.

¶11

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 26.7.2021 V.S.Singh

Nurulhoda Ansari v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nurulhoda Ansari v. State of U.P. and 9 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

Sanjeev Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

C/M Gandhi Vidyalaya Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Neetu Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramlochan Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others

Devraj Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Another