Disposed

Hari Lal v. State of U P and 15 Others

Allahabad HC23 May 2023WRIC/15909/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging non-implementation of an order under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006. The court directed the petitioner to file an execution application under Clause 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual within four months, ensuring affected parties are heard.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file application under Clause 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual for implementation; order to be completed within four months with hearing of affected parties.

Hari Lal Vs State of U P and 15 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113535

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15909 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- Hari Lal Respondent :- State Of U P And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachchida Nand Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

A perusal of office report dated 25.04.2023 shows that pursuant to the steps taken to serve respondent nos.4 to 16, neither undelivered notices nor acknowledgements have come back to the office and even as per CIS status report, no Vakalatnama or counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the aforesaid respondents. Memo of appearance of respondent no.3 has been placed on record. The said respondent is Gaon Sabha that is already represented by Shri Sudhir Bharti.

¶7

In view of the above office report, service of notice upon respondent nos 4 to 16 is held to be sufficient.

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed with the grievance that an order has been passed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 (in short 'the Code-2006') on 25.01.2019, the same has not been implemented on the spot, therefore, a direction to this effect be issued.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha state that order was passed about four years ago and there being various parties to the proceedings who may be affected by the order are required to be heard during the course of implementation of the same. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that remedy for execution/implementation of any order passed under the Code is contained under Clause 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

¶10

In support of their submission, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the following orders of this Court:

¶11

(i) Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1580 of 2021 (Babu Ram vs State of U.P. and 5 others), dated 28.09.2021.

¶12

(ii) Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 2031 of 2021 (Nathu vs State of U.P. and 5 others), dated 18.11.2021.

¶13

(iii) Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1195 of 2022 ( Mahendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 7 others), dated 25.07.2022.

¶14

(iv) Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1695 of 2022 (Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 others), dated 07.09.2022.

¶15

(v) Writ C No. 25701 of 2022 (Salim vs State of U.P. and 3 others), dated 09.09.2022.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed off with the following directions:-

¶17

(a). The petitioner may file an application for implementation/execution of the order dated 25.01.2019 in terms of Clause 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual before the court concerned.

¶18

(b) In case, the order dated 25.01.2019 has not been set aside/stayed/modified/recalled in any proceedings and has become final, the court concerned shall proceed to consider the application of the petitioner for implementation of the order.

¶19

(c) During the course of the said exercise, the persons, who are affected by the order under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 including private respondents shall also be heard.

¶20

(d) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the court concerned.

¶21

Order Date :-23.5.2023 Jyotsana

¶22

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

Hari Lal v. State of U P and 15 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Lal v. State of U P and 15 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

Sulabh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Najaruddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yash Chaudhary and Others Vs State of U.P.and Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Rita Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sipali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others