Allowed

Naresh @ Ram Naresh v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023WRIC/36712/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing Commissioner, Varanasi Division to decide a stay application in a revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which involved a challenge to an order under Section 67A pending determination by a larger bench on maintainability.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Commissioner, Varanasi Division to decide the staying application in Revision/Cas. No. 1832 of 2022 within three months.

Naresh @ Ram Naresh Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36712 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Naresh @ Ram Naresh Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Udai Shankar Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents, Mr. Udai Shankar Chauhan for respondent no.5 and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.4 - Gram Sabha.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed for mandamus directing respondent no.2 i.e. Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi to decide the stay application filed in Revision / Case No.1832 of 2022, Computerized Case No.C202214000001832, under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulated period.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed under Section 67A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 along with stay application is pending before respondent no.2.

¶8

Learned counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that revision against the order under Section 67A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is not maintainable and the maintainability of the revision has been referred to the larger bench by the Board of Revenue.

¶9

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no final order has been passed by the larger bench of the Board of Revenue, as such, the petitioner's writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that matter has been referred to the larger bench.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the entire facts and circumstances, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing respondent no.2 to decide the aforementioned petitioner's revision in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶11

With the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 27.2.2023 Rameez

¶13

Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naresh @ Ram Naresh v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh @ Ram Naresh 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

Astbhuja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Phulwasi Devi Vs Dinesh Singh and 5 Others

Reeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raj Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Maha Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others