Allowed

Jagnnath v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jun 2021WRIC/6782/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaunpur, to decide a pending demarcation case within the three-month period mandated by Section 24(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as no valid reasons for delay were recorded.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent-2 to decide the pending case within three months without unnecessary adjournments.

Jagnnath Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6782 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Jagannath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Lal Ram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for petitioner on video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents1 and 2 is also available.

¶6

Notice on behalf of respondent-3 has been accepted by the Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Tripathi but he is not available on audio/video link.

¶7

Jagannath, the writ petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent-2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Jaunpur to decide Case No.Nil of 2019 (Jagannath vs. Paras Nath and others), under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006, which is pending before him.

¶8

Record shows that petitioner along with his brother filed above mentioned case for demarcation in terms of Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 23.03.2019. However, in sipte of the fact that a period of more than two years and three months has rolled by above mentioned case is still pending.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner has then invited to the provisions contained in Section 24 (3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. According to aforesaid provision, proceedings under Section 24 as far as possible be completed within three months from the date of application. Learned counsel for petitioner thus contends that in spite of above noted mandate of law, respondent-2 has failed to decide above mentioned case within the time period provided under the statute. There is nothing on record to demonstrate the circumstances on account of which above noted case could not be decided within the time period provided under the statute. He therefore, contends that mandamus as prayed for is liable to be issued by this Court.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the facts as noted as well as submission made by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing

¶12

Counsel and from perusal of record as well as all facts and reasons recorded above, present writ petition succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly, allowed.

¶13

Respondent -2 is directed to decide Case No.Nil of 2019 (Jagannath vs. Paras Nath and others) pending before him with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy/computer generated copy of this order before him which shall be filed by petitioner by means of a notary affidavit.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.6.2021 Ashish Pd.

Jagnnath v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagnnath v. State of U.P. and 8 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

Ram Bachan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suncity Hi- Tech Projects Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Syed Asif Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. Another

Alamgeer Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shri Kishun Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others