Disposed

Ram Sundar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2023WRIC/22531/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Handia, to decide a pending suit filed under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within six months in accordance with the legislative mandate of the Revenue Code Rules.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide pending suit within six months via reasoned order after hearing parties.

Ram Sundar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146265

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22531 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Sundar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and perused the record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia , for the following relief:

¶8

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Handia, Prayagraj to decide the case no. 3724/2021 (Computerized Case No. T202102030403724), Bhulai and others Vs. Ram Swaroop and others, expeditiously, within stipulated period of time.

¶9

(ii) .....................

¶10

(iii) ...................."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending for disposal since 2021 before the respondent No.3 but till date no final order has been passed.

¶12

Sub Rule 10 of Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under:

¶13

"............(10). The Sub Divisional Officer shall make an endeavour to decide the suit within the period of six months and if the suit is not decided within such period, the reason shall be recorded."

¶14

Since, there is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within stipulated period of time as provided under

¶15

the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶16

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 case within stipulated period as to be fixed by this Court.

¶17

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent nos. 4 to 9 is dispensed with.

¶18

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. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Handia, Prayagraj (respondent No. 3), before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide the Case no. 3724/2021, Computerized Case No. T202102030403724, (Bhulai and others Vs. Ram Swaroop and others), in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order 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, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶19

It is made clear that the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned shall decide the case on its merit and this order shall not come in the way of such decisions to be taken on the basis of the merit of the case.

¶20

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶21

Order Date :- 21.7.2023 S.A.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Sundar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sundar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 9 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

Mohd. Azhar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 16 Others

Dharmraj Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Akhileshwar @ Akhilesh Vs State of U.P. and 21 Others

Durgawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanju Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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