Allowed

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

Allahabad HC29 Jun 2021WRIC/6784/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition praying for mandamus to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lalganj, to decide a pending demarcation case under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within three months, citing inaction beyond the statutory period.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent-2 to decide Case No. T202015060403174 preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

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

¶1

Court No. - 89 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6784 of 2021 Petitioner :- Alamgeer Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶2

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent-3, Gram Panchayat, who are available on video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 and 2 is also available.

¶4

Alamgeer, the writ petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent-2, Sub-Divisional Officer, Lalganj, District Azamgarh to decide Case No. T202015060403174 (Haidar Ali vs. Gaon Sabha), under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006, pending before him, within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶5

Record shows that respondents 2^nd Set initiated proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006, by filing an application dated 05.07.2019 which was registered as Case No. T202015060403174 (Haidar Ali vs. Gaon Sabha), under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006. Subsequently, respondent-2 passed an an order of status quo on 22.07.2020. According to petitioner on account of order dated 22.07.2020, petitioner has been prevent from raising construction over bhumidhari plot no.201. He further submits that petitioner, who is respondent in above mentioned case has already filed his objection on 19.03.2020. In spite of facts that a period of more than one year has rolled by from the date of filing of objection yet above mentioned case has not yet been decided.

¶6

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that under the scheme of Section 24(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it is provided that the Sub Divisional Officer is under a legal obligation to decide demarcation case filed under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of filing of the application. In spite of specific mandate of law as provided in Section 24(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, respondent-2 has failed to comply the same. As such inaction on part of respondent-2 in not deciding above mentioned case as per mandate of law provided under Section 24(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is wholly illegal. He has then invited attention of the Court to the order sheet of above mentioned case and on basis thereof contends that the order sheet does not reflect any reasonable ground on the basis of which above mentioned case could not be decided within the time period provided under the statute. As such mandamus as prayed for is liable to be issued by this Court.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel as well as Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla could not dispute the facts as noted above as well as the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla and upon perusal of record as well as the facts and reasons recorded above, present writ petition succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly, allowed.

¶9

Respondent -2, Sub-Divisional Officer, Lalganj, District Azamgarh is directed to decide Case No. T202015060403174 (Haidar Ali vs. Gaon Sabha), pending before him 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 before him, which shall be filed by petitioner by means of a notary affidavit.

¶10

Order Date :- 29.6.2021/Ashish Pd.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alamgeer 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

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

Jagnnath Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others