Disposed

Anwari Begum v. State of U.P. and 13 Others

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2023WRIB/3782/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Board of Revenue, UP at Prayagraj, to decide the pending revision under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act expeditiously within six months, recording reasons for delay.

What did the court decide?

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

Anwari Begum Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:216043

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3782 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anwari Begum Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anurag Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Prem Bahadur Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha / respondent No. 5 and perused the record.

¶6

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

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj (respondent no. 2) to decide the Revision No. 1958/2018, Computer Case No. AL20181506001958 (Rizwan Vs. Mo. Imran) under Section 229(b) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, pending in his court expeditiously preferably within the stipulated period as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the respondent in the pending revision before the learned Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj (respondent no. 2) since the year 2018. He submits that because of the pendency of the revision, the petitioner is facing hardship and as such the disposal of the revision may be expedited in the interest of justice.

¶9

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

¶10

"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.

¶11

(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. "

¶12

There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within the period of time as provided under the

¶13

aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶14

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.

¶15

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 6 to 14 is dispensed with.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj (respondent no. 2), before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide the Revision No. 1958/2018, Computer Case No. AL20181506001958 (Rizwan Vs. Mo. Imran) under Section 229(b) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 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, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments will be granted to either of the parties.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 9.11.2023 Arif

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anwari Begum v. State of U.P. and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwari Begum v. State of U.P. and 13 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

Daya Kishan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Murari Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vijay Kumar Yadav and Another Vs Board of Revenue and 12 Others

Mohini Awasthi and Another vs Umesh Kumar and 2 Others

Ishwar Das Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shamsuddin Vs Board of Revenue and 7 Others