Disposed

Radha Krishna Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 May 2023WRIC/11151/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought expedited disposal of a pending revenue case. The High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Tehsildar to conclude proceedings within four months and allowing personal appearance if lawyers fail to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to conclude proceedings expeditiously within four months; permission for personal appearance if lawyers fail to cooperate.

Radha Krishna Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103121

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11151 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Radha Krishna Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

¶7

This petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Case No. 04271 of 2018 (Computerized Case No. T201805200204271) (Gaon Sabha vs Vishnudev Yadav) under section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No. 2 Tehsildar, Salempur, Deoria, within stipulated period.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pendency of the aforesaid case is causing serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and, therefore, this Court should issue a direction for expeditious disposal of the case.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has no serious objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

In view of the above, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶11

In case, the lawyers do not cooperate with the proceedings either on account of abstainment from work or otherwise, the court concerned shall permit personal appearance of the parties to address it on the merits of the aforesaid case. However, the authority/court concerned shall take special care of the fact that the property rights of the parties may not be adversely affected only on account of non-cooperation of the lawyers and the aforesaid matter shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law, taking care of the statutory provisions and after making critical analysis of the

¶12

material available on record.

¶13

Order Date :- 12.5.2023 Sazia

¶14

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

Radha Krishna Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Krishna Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilesh Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Surendra Das Vs Up Zila Adhikari Kasia and 9 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Bechan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pratyush Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhonu Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others