Disposed

Himanshu v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2023WRIC/39182/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Officer to decide a pending restoration case under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within three months without unnecessary adjournments, reserving merit for trial.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to decide the restoration case expeditiously within three months from the date of production of certified copy.

Himanshu Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:226872

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39182 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Himanshu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyan Prakash Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned State Law Officer for the Staterespondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, Counsel for respondent no.11, Land Management Committee.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing respondent No.2, Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Burhnpur, District Azamgarh to decide the restoration case No. RST/ 3998 of 2023, Computerized case No. T202315060603998 (Sudamee Vs. Himanshu and Others) under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulated period.

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order dated 14.6.2023, restoration application along with the prayer for condonation of delay has been filed on behalf of the petitioner which is pending for adjudication before respondent no.2.

¶9

Certified copy of the order sheet has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition in order to demonstrate that the case is not proceeding expeditiously.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No.2, Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Burhnpur, District Azamgarh to consider and decide the aforementioned restoration case after passing necessary order on the delay condonation matter in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties

¶11

concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of restoration application.

¶12

Order Date :- 30.11.2023

¶13

Vandana Y.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Himanshu v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu v. State of U.P. and 10 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

Bhola Nath (Since Deceased) and 12 others Vs State of U.P. and 9 others

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Palla Das Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Baij Nath and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Murtaza Khan Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Udaibhan Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others