Disposed

Gopal @ Vinod v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2021WRIC/2397/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate and learned court below to decide the suit for demarcation of disputed property under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, within three months, providing specific safeguards against unnecessary adjournments and dilatory tactics.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to decide the suit within three months; directions against unnecessary adjournments, imposition of costs, and cooperation by parties.

Gopal @ Vinod Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2397 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Gopal @ Vinod Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sadhu Sharan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing mode.

¶6

The only prayer made by Sri Sadhu Sharan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings registered as Suit No.07677 of 2019, Computerized Case No.T201902030207677 (Shyama Devi and others Vs. Raj Narayan and others) under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, filed for demarcation of the disputed property be decided within the time period stipulated in the statute for a final decision in the matter.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that the private respondents have been noticed and have entered appearance before the learned court below in May, 2021. The court proceedings were held up in the past month due to Covid-19 pandemic. However, the courts have now started functioning. He further submits that the courts below are under an obligation of law to decide the proceedings within the time period stipulated in the statute.

¶8

In view of the submissions made at the bar, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition

¶9

pending or exchanging any pleadings.

¶10

The matter is remitted to the respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fulpur, DistrictPrayagraj/learned court below. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fulpur, District-Prayagraj/learned court below to execute the following directions:

¶11

The respondent no.2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fulpur, District-Prayagraj/learned court below, shall decide the proceedings registered as Suit No.07677 of 2019, Computerized Case No.T201902030207677 (Shyama Devi and others Vs. Raj Narayan and others) under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 filed for demarcation of the disputed property, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶12

The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned and the authority/official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶13

(2) All parties to the lis including the respondents arrayed in the writ petition shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed.

¶14

(3) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fulpur, DistrictPrayagraj/learned court below.

¶15

(4) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fulpur, District-Prayagraj/learned court below, or adopts dilatory tactics, the respondent no.2Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fulpur, DistrictPrayagraj/learned court below, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶16

(5) The respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fulpur, District-Prayagraj/learned court below, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. (6) In case any adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fulpur, DistrictPrayagraj/learned court below, shall impose costs not below Rs.750/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶17

(7) If necessary, the respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fulpur, District-Prayagraj/learned court below, shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of three months for deciding the suit is strictly adhered to.

¶18

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.7.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Gopal @ Vinod v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal @ Vinod 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

Rajbali Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jaipal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jagannath and Another Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University Formerly U.P. Technical University and 3 Others

Neelam Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another