Disposed

Mithai Lal v. State of U.P. and 19 Others

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2021WRIC/29211/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a petition seeking delay in deciding a revenue reform application. Upon perusal of the record, the court issued a mandatory direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer to dispose of the specific pending case within three months from the date of filing the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-2, Sub-Divisional Officer, to decide Case No.1392 of 2018 (Teras and 14 Others Vs. U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad and 3 Others) within three months without adjournments.

Mithai Lal Vs State of U.P. and 19 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29211 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Mithai Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 19 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Sekhar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 to 3 and Mr. C.S. Pandey, learned counsel representing respondent-5.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-2, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil- Sadar, DistrictGorakhpur to decide Case No.1392 of 2018 (Computerized Case No.201805310301392) (Teras and 14 Others Vs. U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad and 3 Others) under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in a time bound manner.

¶8

Record shows that reespondents-6 to 20 filed an application dated 23.01.2018 in terms of Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Same was registered as Case No.1392 of 2018 (Computerized Case No.201805310301392) (Teras and 14 Others Vs. U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad and 3 Others).

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that inspite of the fact that a period of more than three years and six months has rolled by from the date of filing of afore-mentioned case, same has not been decided till date. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that non-disposal of afore-mentioned case even after expiry of aforesaid period, cannot be said to be justified in any manner. Moreover, delay in disposal of afore-mentioned case is not attributable to petitioner. He has then invited attention of Court to the provisions contained in Section 24(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and on basis thereof, he contends that respondent-2, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil- Sadar, DistrictGorakhpur was under a statutory obligation to decide aforementioned case within the time period stipulated under the Act. As such, respondent-2, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Gorakhpur is liable to be directed by this Court to decide afore-mentioned case within a specific time period. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for by petitioner is liable to be issued by this Court.

¶10

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents1 to 3 and Mr. C.S. Pandey, learned counsel representing respondent-5 have opposed the present writ petition.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Mr. C.S. Pandey, learned counsel representing respondent-5 and upon perusal of record, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this writ petition pending. Interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-2, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Gorakhpur to decide Case No.1392 of 2018 (Computerized Case No.201805310301392) (Teras and 14 Others Vs. U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad and 3 Others) within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶12

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent-2, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Gorakhpur to decide Case No.1392 of 2018 (Computerized Case No.201805310301392) (Teras and 14 Others Vs. U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad and 3 Others) filed by respondents-6 to 20 with all expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified/computer generated copy of this order which shall be filed by petitioner in afore-mentioned case pending before respondent-2 by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶13

Order Date :- 9.11.2021 Saif

Mithai Lal v. State of U.P. and 19 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithai Lal v. State of U.P. and 19 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

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Darsoo Alias Darsoo Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Raj Vs Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Pragat Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. and 5 Others