Disposed

Adarsh Kumar Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 May 2023WRIC/14285/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged delay in concluding a pending revenue case under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006. The Court directed the Tehsildar to conclude proceedings by 31.08.2023 and called for explanations if delayed, ensuring property rights were not affected by lawyer inaction.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no.2-Tehsildar to conclude proceedings on or before 31.08.2023; call for explanation if failed.

Adarsh Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:97590

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14285 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Adarsh Kumar Pandey And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh,Shubham Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Case No.1032/2010-2011 (Sharan Shankar & Ors. v. Adarsh Kumar & Ors.) (Computerized Case No.T-201015060500007) under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 is pending since more than 11 years and by order dated 11.05.2017, the court concerned had fixed the matter for recording applicant's evidence by giving him last opportunity with a specific condition that, in case, the evidence is not led on the next date, the opportunity shall automatically stand closed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed entire order sheet of the concerned court and submits that applicant has not led evidence despite the aforesaid order and the court has not closed the evidence although it was directed as aforesaid.

¶8

Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules-2016 and has argued that in the undisputed case of mutation, the case should be concluded within 45 days from the date of registration whereas in a disputed case, proceedings must be concluded within a period of 90 days; in case, the same are not concluded within aforesaid period of time, reason for the same shall be recorded.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, this writ petition is being disposed off directing the respondent no.2-Tehsildar, Mehnagar, District-Azamgarh to conclude the proceedings of aforesaid case on or before 31.08.2023 , failing which, explanation may be called from the court concerned in terms of the aforesaid provision.

¶10

5 . 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

¶11

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.

¶12

Order Date :- 8.5.2023 Jyotsana

¶13

Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Adarsh Kumar Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adarsh Kumar Pandey and 2 Others 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

Sri Bhagwandas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Akhtar Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur and 2 Others

Rajendra Patel Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Kripa Shankar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pinku Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others