Disposed

Santosh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023WRIC/32381/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of a pending restoration application filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The court directed the Respondent Tehsildar to decide the matter within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tehsildar, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau to decide the pending restoration application within 45 days without any unnecessary adjournment.

Santosh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183565

¶2

Court No. - 38

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32381 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Santosh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

Considering the nature of the controversy involved in the present writ petition, the service of notice upon the private respondents are being dispensed with.

¶8

The limited prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate direction to respondent No. 2, Tehsildar, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau to decide petitioner's restoration application dated 17.11.2022 pending in Case No. T203115510204072 (Manorama versus Sarfraj), under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has filed the restoration application on 17.11.2022 but till date the same has not been decided.

¶10

Learned counsels appearing for the respondents submit that application so filed by the petitioner shall be decided by the respondents within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶11

Considering the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid application and also taking into consideration the fact that recall/restoration application dated 17.11.2022 is pending since long, the writ petition is disposed of by requiring the respondent No. 2, Tehsildar, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau seized with the recall/restoration application dated 17.11.2022 pending in Case No. T203115510204072 (Manorama versus Sarfraj), under Section 34 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

¶12

45 days from the date of service of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶14

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh v. State of U.P. and 4 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

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

Udaiveer Vs State of U.P. and Another