Disposed

Hari Saran v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2023WPIL/584/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the Allahabad High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Sub Divisional Officer to conclude the pending revenue case within six months, ensuring property rights are not adversely affected due to lawyer uncooperation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to conclude the pending revenue case within six months, permitting personal appearance if lawyers are non-cooperative.

Hari Saran Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 584 of 2023 Petitioner :- Hari Saran Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶2

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondents as well as Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel representing the Gaon Sabha.

¶3

This petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Case No. 3864 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202214700303864) ( State of U.P. vs Santosh Kumar and others), under sections 31/32 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before respondent No.2, Sub Divisional Officer, Raja Talab, district Varanasi.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pendency of the aforesaid case is causing serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and therefore this Court should issue a direction for expeditious disposal of the case.

¶5

Learned Standing Counsel has no serious objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

In view of the above, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶7

In case the lawyers do not cooperate with the proceedings either on account of abstainment from work or otherwise, the court concerned shall permit personal appearance of the parties to address it on the merits of the aforesaid case. However, the authority/court concerned shall take special care of the fact that the property rights of the parties may not be adversely affected only on account of non-cooperation of the lawyers and the aforesaid matter shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law, taking care of the statutory provisions and after making critical analysis of the material available on record.

¶8

Order Date :- 16.3.2023 Sazia

¶9

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hari Saran v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Saran v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Balendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Bali Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Upendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Indrawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Har Dev Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs Rajendra Prasad and 3 Others