Allowed

Prem Taneja v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2023WRIB/3618/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court addressed a writ petition seeking directions for the speedy disposal of a pending revision before the Board of Revenue. Relying on statutory timelines in Para 458 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the court directed the respondent to decide the matter within six months via a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision application within six months by a reasoned order after hearing the parties.

Prem Taneja Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:210151

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3618 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Prem Taneja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Gyanendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gyanendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arunesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents no.1 & 2 and perused the record.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:

¶8

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the Revision No. 2762 of 2017, under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (Computer Case No.AL20170960002762) (Prem Taneja vs. State of U.P. and others) expeditiously and within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶9

(ii) ................................

¶10

(iii) ..............................."

¶11

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Revision No.2762 of 2017, under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is pending for disposal since 2017 before the respondent no.2. He submits that the petitioner is suffering hardship because of the pendency of the aforesaid case.

¶12

Para 458 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual provides as under:

¶13

" 458. Speedy Disposal- (1) The court shall endeavour to finally decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of institution of the suit and if the suit is not decided within the period aforesaid, the reason for the same shall be recorded.

¶14

(2) The appellate or the revisional court shall endeavour to finally decide the appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded. "

¶15

There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within the period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned case, within stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

¶17

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent no.3 is dispensed with.

¶18

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶19

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, with a direction to the learned Board of Revenue (respondent No.2), before whom the Case No.2762 of 2017 (Computerized Case No. AL20170960002762) is pending for disposal, to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit, after affording

¶20

opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to either of the parties, if prayed for, will be permissible to be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

¶21

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶22

Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Abhishek Gupta

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prem Taneja v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Taneja 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

Rohit and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Shamsun Nisha Vs Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and 11 Others

Smt.Tarawati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Other

Gopal Vs the Board of Revenue Judicature and 5 Others

Suleman Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others