Disposed

Udaiveer v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023WRIC/27567/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Allahabad disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to decide a referenced case under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within three months, as the statutory period for disposal had expired.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the concerned authority to decide the registered case within three months from the date of service of the certified copy of the order.

Udaiveer Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182648

¶2

Court No. - 38

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27567 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Udaiveer Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar Srivastava,Prakhar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Avinash Chandra Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the District Magistrate, Mathura, as party respondent in the writ petition during course of the day.

¶7

Heard Sri P. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned State Counsel and Sri A. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his application under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which has been registered as Case No.10 of 2023 (Udayveer Vs. State of U.P. & others) be directed to decide within a time frame fixed by this Court. He further submits that the said case was registered on 13.03.2023 and despite passing of the statutory period of 30 days provided for deciding the said case, no progress has been made. He further submits that purpose of filing this writ petition would be served if a direction is issued to the concerned authority to decide the aforesaid case within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the State Respondent as well as Sri A. C. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 submit that they have no objection to the aforesaid proposition.

¶10

Considering the prayer made by the petitioner for expeditious disposal of the case and also taking into consideration the fact that the period provided under the statute has since been expired, the writ petition is disposed of by requiring the Respondent No.3, seized with the Case No.10 of 2023 (Udayveer Vs. State of U.P. & others), under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to consider and decide the same expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, within a period of three months from the date of service of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶11

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 pks

¶12

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

Udaiveer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaiveer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peeush Prakash Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Dhar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kuldeep Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Uma Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others

Santosh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others