Disposed

Ramlochan v. State of U.P. and 17 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2021WRIC/9631/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to complete land demarcation proceedings and decide a pending original suit. With mutual consent, the authority was directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously within four months, free from legal impediments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to complete demarcation proceedings and decide pending O.S. within four months.

Ramlochan Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9631 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ramlochan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 17 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Notice need not to be issued to respondent nos. 6 to 18, at this stage.

¶4

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

¶5

"I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondent no-3 to complete Patthar Gari ( पतथरगडड ) of the Arazi No. 1328/11/:14, 1217/911/3:9 situated in Village Oril Pargana Mahuli, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Azamgarh in compliance of the order dated 13.03.2007 and 17.5.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2.

¶6

II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondent no-2 to decide the O.S. No. 00437/2021 and computer No. 202115060300437 Ram Lochan versus Kishore and others under Section 24 U.P. Revenue Act 2006 pending before him, within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the order dated 13.03.2007 and recall application being rejected on 07.05.2018, the demarcation proceedings had not been carried out by respondent no. 2 till date. The petitioner had approached the respondent no. 2 through application dated 15.05.2018 for the compliance of the said orders, which remained pending.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel does not oppose the limited prayer so made for early disposal of the proceedings.

¶9

As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, with the consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of at this stage without calling for counter affidavit, with a direction upon respondent no. 2 to conclude the proceedings, if there is no legal impediment and after hearing all the concerned parties, strictly in accordance with law by reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court.

¶10

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 26.7.2021

¶12

V.S.Singh

Ramlochan v. State of U.P. and 17 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlochan v. State of U.P. and 17 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

C/M Gandhi Vidyalaya Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Neetu Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devraj Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nurulhoda Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Another