Disposed

Shiv Kumar Pandey and Another v. State U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022/312/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 writ petition, the High Court directed the concerned Sub Divisional Officer to expedite the disposal of a recall application filed opposite party no. 7 regarding the confirmation of a measurement report and conclude all related proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party no.2 to decide the recall application moved by opposite party no.7 and conclude all proceedings within 3 months of producing this order before them.

Shiv Kumar Pandey and Another Vs State U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Gonda and Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 31

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 312 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Pandey And Another Respondent :- State U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Gonda And Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, and perused the record.

¶8

The instant petition has been moved by the petitioner to issue an order or direction directing the opposite party no.2 to finalize the proceedings of Case No. 00453/2021 Computer Case No. T2021108300500453 (Shiv Kumar Pandey Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari and others) in view of Rule 22(12) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules 2016.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 26.10.2021 the report submitted by R.I. i.e. Revenue Inspector of date 2.1.2021 was confirmed and a copy of the said order was also forwarded to the Tehsildar for compliance. While referring to the Sub-rule 12 of Rule 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules 2016, he submits that it is provided in the above mentioned Sub-rule 12 that if the report (measurement report) is confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer the boundary pillars shall be fixed accordingly within a period of one week and report in respect thereof be submitted which shall form the part of the record.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that since the report of the Revenue Inspector was confirmed on 26.10.2021 and it was incumbent duty of the Revenue Officials specially of Tehsildar to have complied the order of the Sub Divisional Officer so far as the same is concerned with fixation of permanent boundary marks/ in pursuance of the report of the R.I. confirmed by the opposite party no.2, vide order dated 26.10.2021.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri Pankaj Gupta appearing for opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 submits that to recall the order dated 26.10.2021 an application has been

¶12

moved by the opposite party no.7 and the same is still pending and in absence of disposal of the same no further proceedings pertaining to fixation of permanent boundary marks is possible as in case any modification or setting aside of the order dated 26.10.2021 the whole process would have to be reversed.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the considered opinion of this Court, no gainful purpose shall be sub-served by keeping the instant writ petition pending. Having regard to the order intended to be passed the issuance of notice to private respondents no. 4 to 10 is hereby dispensed with as any direction for expeditious disposal of the proceedings pertaining to the correction of boundary marks would be in the interest of all parties.

¶14

Perusal of the record would transpire that the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector of date 2.1.2021 was confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. opposite party no.2 vide order dated 26.10.2021. It is also an admitted fact that an application to recall this order i.e. 26.10.2021 has also been moved by the opposite party no.7 i.e. Smt. Madhuri Tiwari, which is pending. In the considered opinion of this Court, the purpose of moving instant writ petition shall be served if opposite party no.2 is directed to expeditiously dispose of the recall application moved by the opposite party no.7 and thereafter to conclude the proceedings at the earliest.

¶15

In view of above, writ petition moved by the petitioner is finally disposed of in terms that direction is issued to opposite party no.2 to decide the recall application moved by the opposite party no.7, pertaining to recall of the order dated 26.10.2021 and to conclude all proceedings within 3 months from the date an authenticated copy of this order is produced before the opposite party no.2, after providing an opportunity of being heard and led evidence to all the parties, strictly in accordance with law, subject to the cooperation by the parties.

¶16

It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits of the case.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.2.2022 Muk

¶18

Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.02.11 19:52:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Kumar Pandey and Another v. State U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Pandey and Another v. State U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Gonda and 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

Sanjay Singh Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Haidergarh,Barabanki and Others

Rajkumari Vs Sub District Magistrate Amethi Tehsil Amethi and Others

Akhilesh Kumar Bajapai Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri and 29 Others

Smt. Sehrul Nisa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko and Others

Shakuntala Yadav Vs Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Jagdev Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Revenue Dept. Lko and Others