Disposed

Shiv Prasad v. District Magistrate Sultanpur and 10 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2023WRIC/5078/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of a pending suit for division of holdings under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The High Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide the suit within six months with a reasoned order and maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Directed Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur to decide Suit No. 00980/2019 under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within six months with a reasoned and speaking order; parties to maintain statu

Shiv Prasad Vs District Magistrate… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:41335

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5078 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shiv Prasad Respondent :- District Magistrate Sultanpur And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶5

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to make necessary correction in the array of parties i.e. respondent no. 11 during the course of day.

¶6

Heard Sri Omkarnath Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Kumar Maurya, learned standing counsel for the Staterespondent nos. 1,2, 9 and 10, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 11 / Gaon Sabha and perused the record.

¶7

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:

¶8

"(i). to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari impugned order dated 22.5.2023 passed by opposite party no. 2 in suit No. 00980/2019 (Computerized Case No. T201904680300980) under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

¶9

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite party no. 2 whereby private opposite parties may kindly be directed stop the construction and maintain status quo over plot in dispute.

¶10

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing opposite parties to decide the application dated 3.6.2023 of the petitioner in the interest of justice."

¶11

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit for division of the holdings is pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur / respondent no. 2. He further submits that learned court of Sub Divisional Magistrate without taking into consideration has rejected the interim relief that was granted in his favour vide order dated 23.11.2019. He further submits that because of the pendency of the suit, he is facing undue hardship and as such he prayed for the expeditious disposal of the suit in the interest of justice.

¶12

Paragraph 458 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual provides as under:

¶13

"Speedy Disposal-(1) The court shall endeavour to finally decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of institution of the suit and if the suit is not decided within the period aforesaid, the reason for the same shall be recorded.

¶14

(2) The appellate or the revisional court shall endeavour to finally decide the appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded."

¶15

Since, there is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within the period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶16

Learned standing counsel as well as learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submits that he has no objection to the extent that if a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the case within the stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

¶17

In view of the order proposed to be passed, service of notice upon the respondent nos. 3 to 8 is dispensed with.

¶18

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur (respondent no. 2) to consider and decide the above-mentioned Suit No. 00980/2019 (Computerized Case No. T201904680300980) under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in accordance with law, positively within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, by a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties if there is no other legal impediment.

¶19

It is made clear that the Sub Divisional Magistrate concern shall decide the suit on its merit and this order shall not come in the way of such proceedings.

¶20

It is also made clear that till the disposal of the Suit No. 00980/2019 (Computerized Case No. T201904680300980), the parties shall maintain status-quo as on today.

¶21

With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.6.2023/Arif

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Prasad v. District Magistrate Sultanpur and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Prasad v. District Magistrate Sultanpur 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

Tej Bux Singh and Anr. Vs Sia Rani and 5 Ors.

Shri Kant Vs State Public Service Tribunal Indira Bhawan Thru. Registrar and Others

Ram Shabd Vs Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

M/S Santosh Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 2 Others