Disposed

Ram Pyare v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023WRIC/11797/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought completion of demarcation proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 initiated by a High Court orderdated 20.10.2020 where the process remained pending despite dues being deposited, and the court directed the authority to conclude it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, directed to conclude proceedings under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within three months.

Ram Pyare Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11797 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Pyare Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Phool Chandra Singh,Govind Narayan Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the application of the petitioner moved under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, an order was passed on 20.10.2020 directing the Tehsildar concernred to carry out the demarcation activities and though the petitioner has already deposited the requisite amount, the proceedings have not been finalized on the spot, in which regard he has moved an application to the authorities concerned.

¶8

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to conclude the proceedings under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pursuant to the order dated 20.10.2020, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶9

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 material available on record.

¶10

Order Date :- 19.4.2023 Sazia

¶11

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

Ram Pyare v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pyare 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

Udai Bhan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sanju Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Laichi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Hakik Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others