Allowed

Smt. Kiran Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2022WRIC/5831/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application to substitute deceased respondents, the Court allowed the substitution. Proceeding to the main petition challenging delay in deciding a revenue revision under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Board of Revenue to decide the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to Board of Revenue, Allahabad to decide the pending revision No.1432 of 2021 expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

Smt. Kiran Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5831 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Kiran Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Order on Substitution Application No.Nil of 2022

¶6

Substitution application has been filed by the petitioner stating therein that after filing of the present petition, respondent no.3 namely Daya Shankar Rai died on 10.2.2022 leaving behind his legal heirs names of which have been contained in paragraph four of the affidavit.

¶7

Cause shown is sufficient.

¶8

Substitution application is allowed.

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to insert word "deceased" against the name of respondent no.3 and substitute the same by adding the persons named in paragraph 4 of the affidavit as respondent nos.3/1 to 3/4 during the course of the day.

¶10

Order on writ petition

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2.

¶12

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to the private respondents.

¶13

The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to respondent no.2-Board of Revenue, Allahabad to decide the Revision No.1432 of 2021 (Daya Shankar Rai & another Vs. Sub Divisional Officer & others) under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act within stipulated period.

¶14

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the matter is pending consideration he is suffering irreparable loss.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the aforesaid revision in accordance with law expeditiously, without granting

¶16

unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties after giving opportunity to the parties concerned, if there is no legal impediment.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.3.2022 Pramod Tripathi

¶18

Digitally signed by PRAMOD TRIPATHI Date: 2022.03.24 10:32:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Kiran Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kiran Sharma 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

Mohd. Rahis Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mewa Lal Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Shravan Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bechani Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ganesh Dutt Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Vindu Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others