Allowed

Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2021WRIC/9616/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to direct the respondent authority to expeditiously decide a pending application for recovery of land revenue under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within four months after conceding to a limited prayer for early disposal.

What did the court decide?

The respondent Naib Tehsildar was directed to decide RST/03119 within four months after hearing affected parties.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9616 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2.

¶6

Notice need not be sent to respondents no.3 and 4.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶8

" A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the RST/03119 (Computer Case No. T-202015060603119) Mahesh Kumar and others Vs. Ram Kumar, Under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Village-Chanaita, Pargana-Atrouliya, Tehsil- Budhanpur, District- Azamgarh pending before the court of Naib Tehsildar Atraulia, Tehsil- Budhanpur, DistrictAzamgarh, during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court."

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending consideration before the respondent no.2 since 2019. The limited prayer has been made for early disposal of application.

¶10

Learned standing counsel does not oppose the limited prayer so made by the petitioner.

¶11

As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending and calling for counter affidavit, the respondent no.2, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil- Budhanpur, District- Azamgarh is directed to expeditiously decide RST/03119 (Computer Case No. T-202015060603119) Mahesh Kumar and others Vs. Ram Kumar, Under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, VillageChanaita, Pargana-Atrouliya, Tehsil- Budhanpur, DistrictAzamgarh preferably within next four months from the date of production of a copy of this order downloaded from the website of the High Court strictly in accordance with law after hearing

¶12

the affected parties.

¶13

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.7.2021 Asha

Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Smt. Priti Mani Tripathi Vs Hridya Narain Singh and Another

Amrunisha and 2 Others Vs Survey Nayab Tehsildar, Collectorate Gorakhpur and 3 Others

Smt. Surbhi Rajput and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Smt,. Ujala and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Sanehi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Aftab Ahmad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others