Disposed

Upendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2023WRIC/6979/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court directed the Tehsildar to conclude the proceedings of Case No. 10405008 of 2022 expeditiously within six months to mitigate prejudice caused by the delay, while noting that a personal appearance might be permitted if lawyers fail to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Tehsildar to conclude proceedings within six months; provision for personal appearance in event of lawyer non-cooperation.

Upendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6979 of 2023 Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Yadav,Sunil Kumar Yadav

¶2

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Satyendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondents.

¶4

This petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Case No. 10405008 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202215510405008) (Upendra Kumar Yadav vs Shabbir Rojan Aham Saikh), under section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶5

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.

¶6

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

¶7

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, Tehsildar concerned to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶8

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.

¶9

Order Date :- 15.3.2023 Sazia

¶10

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

Upendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Sant Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagdeesh Prasad Tiwari Vs Honble Member of Board of Revenue and 2 Others

Jang Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and 27 Others

Balendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Bali Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Vijay Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others