Disposed

Kurban Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2023WRIB/3985/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought mandamus directing the Board of Revenue to expedite a revision pending since 2008. The Single Judge, without adverting on merits, directed the Board to decide the matter by a reasoned order on merit within three months, disallowing unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the pending revision No. 3136 of 2007-2008 by a reasoned order on merit within three months of the order date.

Kurban Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 8… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:228583

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3985 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Kurban Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri R.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶7

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

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Hon'ble Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow/respondent No. 2 to expedite the revision No. 3136 of 2007-2008 (Ekbal Ahmad and others s. Mahendra Kumar Maheshwari and others) under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act as early as possible pending before the respondent No. 2. "

¶9

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said revision is pending since 2008. He submits that the petitioner is suffering hardship because of the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings before the Board of Revenue-respondent No. 2.

¶10

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

¶11

"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.

¶12

(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. "

¶13

Since, there is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are

¶14

not concluded within the period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶15

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.

¶16

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondents No. 3 to 9 is dispensed with.

¶17

Taking into consideration the fact that the aforesaid case is pending for disposal since 2008, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶18

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 (respondent No. 2), before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide the revision No. 3136 of 2007-2008 (Ekbal Ahmad and others s. Mahendra Kumar Maheshwari and others) under Section 219 of Land Revenue 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 three 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 2.12.2023 Sumaira

¶21

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

Kurban Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurban Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 8 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

Smt. Humaira Sultana Vs Board of Revenue U.P. and 4 Others

Jahiruddin and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Harsh Vardhan and 2 Ors. Vs Board of Revenue and 10 Others

Ramnarayan Singh Vs Board of Revenue and 48 Others

Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd. Akram and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others