Allowed

Haridas v. Board of Revenue and 4 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2021WRIC/11741/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to expeditiously decide a remanded case. The respondent accepted notice for early disposal. The court directed the Sub-divisional Magistrate to conclude proceedings with a reasoned order within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 to conclude proceedings within four months via a speaking order.

Haridas Vs Board of Revenue and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11741 of 2021 Petitioner :- Haridas Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶3

Heard Sri R.C. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. Notice need not be issued to respondent no. 5, at this stage.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has complied the order dated 30.06.2020 and copy of the writ petition has been served upon the counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.

¶5

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

¶6

" (I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the pending remand back Case no. 3 of 2017 of 1984 dated 28/12/2020 (Antu versus Mukund Lal) pending before SubDivisional Magistrate Chunar, District- Mirzapur (respondent no. 3) expeditiously, preferably within a short and stipulated period."

¶7

It is contended that in the proceedings under Section 161 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, the revisional court remanded back the matter to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chunar, DistrictMirzapur, which has remained pending. The sole prayer is for early disposal of the case after remand.

¶8

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

¶9

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. 3 to conclude the proceedings, 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 four months from the date of production of copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court.

¶10

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 14.7.2021 V.S.Singh

Haridas v. Board of Revenue and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haridas v. Board of Revenue and 4 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

Ayodhya and 3 Others Vs Parasuram

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs Balkrishna Mishra and 2 Others

Baby Singh and Another Vs Smt. Rajpati Devi and 3 Others

Jyoti Pandey and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Smt. Jhalak Singhal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Smt. Poonam and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others