Disposed

Umesh Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2022WRIC/26005/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court directed the Board of Revenue, U.P., to decide pending revision proceedings under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act within three months, without unnecessary adjournments, to protect the petitioner's interest as the vendee.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the pending revision proceedings expeditiously within 3 months without unnecessary adjournments.

Umesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26005 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Umesh Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay, counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, commanding respondent no.2/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow to decide Case No.806/2019 (Computer Case No.R2019176300806) (Smt. Madhu Mishra vs. Abhai Pratap Singh), under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, within the stipulated time.

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, an order was passed in favour of Abhai Pratap Singh and the petitioner is his vendee. Against the order passed by the Tahsildar, mutating the name of Abhai Pratap Singh, revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act has been filed by respondent no.3 in the year 2019. He further submitted that petitioner has applied for impleadment in the pending revision before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow. He further submitted that revision is not proceeding expeditiously and the interest of petitioner is very much involved. Copy of the order sheet has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition in order to demonstrate that the case is not proceeding expeditiously.

¶8

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2 to decide the aforesaid proceedings to its logical conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶9

Order Date :- 9.9.2022 C.Prakash

¶10

Digitally signed by CHANDRA PRAKASH Date: 2022.09.09 16:36:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Umesh Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Deopoojan Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

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

Abhimanu Maurya Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Amir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sangeeta Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others