Disposed

Raj Narayan v. State of U.P. and 39 Others

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2023WRIC/5419/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a directive to expedite a distribution of holdings case under the U.P. Revenue Code. The Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to conclude proceedings within four months after a fresh hearing, ensuring all parties, including the newly impleaded Gaon Sabha, are heard.

What did the court decide?

Direct supplier to conclude proceedings within four months and give a fresh vacation hearing for all parties.

Raj Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 39 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5419 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 39 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Gaon Sabha as respondent No. 41 in the array of the parties during the course of the day.

¶6

Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Shri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of newly impleaded respondent No. 41 (Gaon Sabha).

¶7

This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶8

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mirzapur to pass the final decree in pursuance of the preliminary decree dated 16.09.2022 passed by the learned S.D.M. Sadar, Mirzapur in Computerized Case No. T202016530107953, under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code,2006 pending before the respondent No. 2 Sub Divisional Magistrate for division of holdings in question i.e. Arazi No. 370-A, 371-A, 376, 377-A, 391-A, 366-A and Arazi No. 370 Kh, 371 Kh, 377 Kh, 391 Kh, 366 Kh, village Aghauli, Tappa 84, Pargana Kantit, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur, if possible within a month, otherwise petitioner shall suffer irreperable loss and injury.

¶9

This Court on previous date passed the following order dated 21.02.2023:

¶10

"The petitioner has come up with a prayer, seeking to expedite and conclude trial of Computerised Case No. T202016530107953 under Section 116, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mirzapur within a determinate period of time.

¶11

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mirzapur shall

¶12

submit a report, within a week, indicating why proceedings of the aforesaid case are still lingering on.

¶13

Lay this petition as fresh on 02.03.2023, along with the report received from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mirzapur.

¶14

Let this order be communicated to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mirzapur through the Collector, Mirzapur by the Registrar (Compliance), within next 48 hours."

¶15

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Mirzapur has submitted his report dated 22.02.2023 mentioning therein that the difficulty is being faced in preparation of Kurras on account of lack of information regarding the occupants of various gatas. However, he has submitted that 02.03.2023 i.e. today, is a date fixed in the matter and the case shall be decided on merits after hearing the concerned parties.

¶16

Since, the prayer in the present writ petition is limited to the extent quoted herein above no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.

¶17

In view of the above, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, district Mirzapur to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case after giving full opportunity of hearing to all the parties to the proceedings as well as respondent No. 41 i.e. Gaon Sabha, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶18

In case the lawyers do not cooperate with the proceedings either on account of abstainment from work or otherwise, the court concerned shall permit personal appearance of the parties to address it on the merits of the aforesaid case. However, the authority/court concerned shall take special care of the fact that the property rights of the parties may not be adversely affected only on account of non-cooperation of the lawyers and the aforesaid matter shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law, taking care of the statutory provisions and after making critical analysis of the material available on record.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.3.2023 Sazia

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Narayan v. State of U.P. and 39 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Narayan v. State of U.P. and 39 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

Ajeet and 4 Others Vs State of U P and 14 Others

Shyamnarayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagdish Narayan Rai Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nepal Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Mohd. Rafe Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 19 Others