Disposed

Rahul Kumar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2023WRIC/6820/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought expeditious disposal of a pending land revenue case to prevent prejudice. The Court upheld the prayer, directing the respondent authority to conclude the proceedings within four months, ensuring parties get full hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to conclude the pending land revenue case expeditiously within four months, permitting personal appearance of parties if lawyers fail to cooperate.

Rahul Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6820 of 2023 Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Munna Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Munna Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondents.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of restoration application dated 27.12.2022 bearing Case No.RST/221/336/2008-2009 (Computerized Case No.C2009050000558) (Harendra Singh v. Tejbahadur Singh) under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act-1901 within stipulated period.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pendency of the aforesaid case is causing serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and therefore this Court should issue a direction for expeditious disposal of the case.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel has no serious objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

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 the respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner (Administration) III Gorakhpur to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶9

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.

¶10

Order Date :- 21.3.2023 Jyotsana

¶11

Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Kumar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrabali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arvind Vs University of Allahabad and 3 Others

Sant Lal Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rama Shankar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satya Prakash Vs Commissioner Varanasi Division and 16 Others

Radheyshyam Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others