Disposed

Anup Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sect.Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022/355/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the Court issued a direction to the Nayab Tehsildar to dispose of a pending Case No. T-202104040401422 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Nayab Tehsildar to decide Case No. T-202104040401422 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within six months through a certified copy of this order.

Anup Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 31

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 355 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Anup Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sect.Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Rajeev Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶6

By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has requested to issue an order or direction to the respondent no.2 i.e. Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Aalapur, Circle Ram Nagar, District Ambedkar Nagar to expeditiously decide the Case No. T- 202104040401422 (Anup Kumar vs. Kedar Nath), filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within stipulated period of time fixed by this Court in accordance with law.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the abovementioned case is pending for disposal before opposite party no.2 since 2021 and no substantial progress has been made in the case, therefore, a suitable direction be given to the opposite party no.2 to dispose of the above-mentioned case expeditiously within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that he would not be having any objection if any direction pertaining to expeditious disposal of the case pending before the respondent no.2 is issued.

¶9

Having regard to the order intended to be passed by this Court, issuance of notice to the opposite party no.3 and 4 is hereby dispensed with as any direction pertaining to the expeditious disposal of the case pending before the respondent no.2 would also be in their interest.

¶10

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2 i.e. Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Aalapur, Circle Ram Nagar, District Ambedkar Nagar to consider and finally decide the above-mentioned case expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned, strictly in

¶11

accordance with law, subject to cooperation of the parties, after providing an opportunity of being heard and led evidence to all the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 14.2.2022 Praveen

¶14

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.02.14 18:24:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anup Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sect.Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anup Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sect.Lko and 3 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

Salma Khatun Vs Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Sadar Gonda and Others

Phool Chandra Vs Tehsildar ,Tehsil Alapur,Ambedkar Nagar and 5 Others

Smt. Usha Devi Dubey Vs Tehsildar Sohawal and 3 others

Jaskamal Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Lakhimpur Kheri and Ors.

Shri Kant Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Others

Dev Mani Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and Others