Disposed

Hari Lal v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2021WRIC/29795/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide a pending declaratory suit filed under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.E. Act, which remained undecided for over nine years. The court disposed of the petition by directing the officer to decide the suit within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 to decide the declaratory suit within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order via Notary Affidavit.

Hari Lal Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29795 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Hari Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent 1, 2 & 3 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent 4.

¶6

By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no. 3 Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Kerakat, District - Jaunpur to decide declaratory suit No. T-20121436536/2012 (Hari Lal vs, Munni Lal & others) under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.E. Act within a time bound period.

¶7

Record shows that petitioner filed a suit for declaration under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the year 2012. Same was registered as case no. T- 20121436536/2012

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that a period of more than 9 years have rolled over from the date of institution of aforementioned declaratory suit, same has not been decided till date. Non disposal of declaratory suit filed by petitioner, even after expiry of aforesaid period, cannot be said to be justified in any manner.

¶9

In addition to above, learned counsel for petitioner has then drawn attention of the Court to the order sheet of aforementioned declaratory suit and on basis thereof, he submits that delay in disposal of declaratory suit filed by petitioner is not attributable to petitioner.

¶10

On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for petitioner submits that suit filed by petitioner is at the evidence stage. Interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued to respondent 3, Sub Divisonal Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Kerakat, District - Jaunpur to decide aforementioned declaratory suit filed by petitioner within a time bound period. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for by petitioner is liable to be issued by this Court.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection in

¶12

case present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent 3, Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaunpur to decide aforementioned declaratory suit in a time bound manner.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1, 2 & 3 and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent 4 and upon perusal of material brought on record, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this writ petition pending.

¶14

Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent 3, Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Kerakat, District - Jaunpur to decide declaratory suit No. T-20121436536/2012 (Hari Lal vs, Munni Lal & others) under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, 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 copy/computer generated copy of this order, which shall be filed by petitioner in above mentioned case pending before respondent 3, Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Kerakat, District - Jaunpur by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶15

Order Date :- 15.11.2021 nd

Hari Lal v. State of U.P. and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Lal v. State of U.P. and 11 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

Anchal Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lalji Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Bhawan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Shabd Vs State of U P and Another

Virendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others