Disposed

Ajad Khan v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2021WRIC/22012/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that indefinite delay in deciding a revision petition violates the interest of justice. It issued directions to the Additional Commissioner to decide the matter within four months, impose costs for adjournments, and ensure strict adherence to timelines.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Additional Commissioner to decide the revision within four months, impose costs for adjournments, and adhere to timelines.

Ajad Khan Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22012 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajad Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Punya Sheel Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.4-Gaon Sabha.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.4-Gaon Sabha contend that they shall enter their appearance before the learned revising court forthwith to defend their case.

¶7

The petitioner as well as proforma respondents No.5 to 8 took the order of cancellation of lease dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Collector, District-Firozabad in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra, which was registered as Revision No.673 of 2015, Computerized Case No.C2015010000673 (Kasim Khan and others Vs. State of U.P.) in the year 2015 under Section 198(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

¶8

The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid revision may be decided within a stipulated period of time. There is no good cause for indefinite delay in deciding the revision. He calls attention to the order-sheet.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities are under an obligation of law to make efforts to decide the aforesaid revision within a reasonable period of time.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

No lis can remain pending indefinitely before a court of law. Prolonged pendency of a lis without good cause may lead to miscarriage of justice. There is no good cause for indefinite delay in deciding the revision.

¶12

No useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending and exchanging pleadings.

¶13

In wake of the preceding discussion, interest of justice will be served by issuing the matter to the learned revising court/learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra with the following directions:

¶14

(I) The learned revising court/learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra, shall decide the revision registered as Revision No.673 of 2015, Computerized Case No.C2015010000673 (Kasim Khan and others Vs. State of U.P.), within a period of four months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the website of High Court, Allahabad. The authority/official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official

¶15

website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

(II) All parties to the lis shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed. (III) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the learned revising court/learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra.

¶17

(IV) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the learned revising court/learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra, or adopts dilatory tactics, learned revising court/learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶18

(V) The learned revising court/learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra, shall give short dates in the proceedings.

¶19

(VI) The learned revising court/learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶20

(VII) In case any adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the learned revising court/learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra, shall impose costs not below Rs.500/- for each adjournment upon

¶21

the party seeking adjournment.

¶22

(VIII) If necessary, the learned revising court/learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra, shall proceed with the hearing of the case on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of four months to decide the revision is strictly adhered to.

¶23

(IX) This order is being passed when the threat of Covid-19 pandemic still exists. In case the court proceedings are held up due to Covid-19 outbreak, the lost working days shall be adjusted and the stipulated period of four months shall accordingly be enhanced. Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.4-Gaon Sabha to serve a copy of this order upon the Collector, District-Firozabad as well as Land Management Committee/Gaon Sabha respectively to ensure that the State authority as well as Gaon Sabha are duly represented before the learned revising court/learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶25

Order Date :- 16.9.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Ajad Khan v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajad Khan v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Pachchu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Sushila Devi @ Sushila Singh Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma and 2 Others Vs the General Manager, Food Corporation of India and 2 Others

Smt. Reeta Vs the State of U P and 4 Others

Nath Saran Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh Ramsukh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others