Disposed

Sacchidanand (Minor) v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2023WRIB/3709/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition directed to expeditiously decide a pending revision under the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act. The court issued a direction to the Board of Revenue, Prayagraj, to decide the matter within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Board of Revenue, Prayagraj, to decide the pending revision within six months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Sacchidanand (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:211230

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3709 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sacchidanand (Minor) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Arunesh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents no.1 & 2 and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:

¶7

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the Revision No.2511/2022, Computer Case No. AL20220242002511 under Section 219 of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (Shiva Kant versus Sachhidanand) expeditiously within stipulated period.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the respondent in Revision No.2511 of 2022. He further submits that the parties have already put in their appearance in the said revision but till date the same could not have been decided for one or other reason and due to the pendency of the said revision, the petitioner is facing undue hardship.

¶11

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

¶12

" 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

¶13

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 the learned Board of Revenue, Prayagraj (respondent No.2), before whom the Case No.2511 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. AL20220242002511) is pending for disposal, to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit, after affording 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,

¶20

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 :- 3.11.2023 Abhishek Gupta

¶23

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

Sacchidanand (Minor) v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sacchidanand (Minor) 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

Vimal Sonkar and 5 Others Vs State of U P and 9 Others

Nagendra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gopal Vs the Board of Revenue Judicature and 5 Others

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Santlal Vs Board of Revenue and 4 Others

Narendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others