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

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023WRIC/27644/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expeditious disposal of revenue appeal; writ petition disposed with direction to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, Shahjahanpur to decide Appeal No. 08 of 2020 (Narendra Kumar vs. Sushil Kumar Narang & 3 others) under Section 207 Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006, pending since 2019, within six months; no opinion on merits; Manendra Singh vs. State of U.P.; WRIT - C No. 27644 of 2023; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:183223; decided 21.9.2023.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Shahjahanpur, to consider and decide Appeal No. 08 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. T-2020126101077556, Narendra Kumar vs. Sushil Kumar Narang & 3 others) preferably within six months from production of a certified copy of the order, strictly in accordance with law. ¶¶10

Manendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether appropriate directions should be issued to respondent no. 2 (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Shahjahanpur) to decide the petitioner's appeal under Section 207 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006, pending since 2019, within a time frame fixed by the Court.

¶¶8

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of by requiring respondent no. 2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Shahjahanpur, seized with Appeal No. 08 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. T-2020126101077556), to consider and decide the same.

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is to be decided preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court, strictly in accordance with law.

¶¶10

Key takeaways

The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and it remains open to respondent no. 2 to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law (merits expressly left open).obiter¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) disposed of Writ - C No. 27644 of 2023 filed by Manendra Singh against the State of U.P. and 6 others. The petitioner's Appeal No. 08 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. T-2020126101077556, Narendra Kumar vs. Sushil Kumar Narang & 3 others) under Section 207 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006 was pending since 2019 before respondent no. 2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Shahjahanpur. Holding that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending, the Court directed respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the appeal preferably within six months from production of a certified copy of the order, strictly in accordance with law, while expressly reserving the merits and leaving respondent no. 2 free to pass appropriate orders.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183223

¶2

Court No. - 38

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27644 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Manendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Anurag Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of the State respondents.

¶7

Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed notice upon the respondent nos. 3 to 7 is hereby dispensed with.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his Appeal No. 08 of 2020 Computerized Case No. T- 2020126101077556 (Narendra Kumar vs. Sushil Kumar Narang & 3 others) under Section 207 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006, is pending consideration before the respondent no. 2 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Shahjahanpur, and the purpose of filing present writ petition shall stands served if the appropriate directions are issued to the respondent no. 2 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Shahjahanpur, to decide the Appeal of the petitioner pending since the year 2019, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶9

Learned counsel representing the respondents have no objection the aforesaid proposition.

¶10

This Court is also of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the same is accordingly disposed of by requiring the respondent no. 2 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Shahjahanpur, seized with the Appeal No. 08 of 2020 Computerized Case No. T- 2020126101077556 (Narendra Kumar vs. Sushil Kumar Narang & 3 others), to consider and decide the same, preferably within a period of six months, from the date of production of certified copy of order of this Court, strictly in accordance with law.

¶11

Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it shall be open for the respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 Deepak/

¶13

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

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

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

Udaiveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others