Disposed

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

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2023WRIB/3987/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the Board of Revenue to decide a pending revision under the U.P. Revenue Code within six months, citing delays since 2019. The Court disposed of the petition by passing a direction for expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Board of Revenue to decide the pending Revision No. 339 of 2019 within six months via a reasoned order.

Mohd. Akram and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:228204

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3987 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohd. Akram And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhila Nand Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Akhila Nand Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel representing 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 directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the Revision No. 339 of 2019 (Mohd. Akram and another vs. Krishna Kumar and others) under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending before respondent No. 2 within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶9

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the aforesaid case is pending since 2019. He submits that the petitioners are suffering hardship because of the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding before 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 not concluded within the period of time as provided under the 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 respondent Nos. 3 to 6 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. 339 of 2019 (Mohd. Akram and another vs. Krishna Kumar and others) under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, 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 :- 2.12.2023 Sumaira

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Akram and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 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

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