Allowed

Dharam Dei v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2023WRIC/7640/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the pendency of the impugned case causes serious prejudice. Allowed the petition directing the respondent Tehsildar to conclude proceedings within four months, permitting personal appearance if lawyers do not cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Tehsildar to conclude pending case within four months; permission for personal appearance if lawyers do not cooperate.

Dharam Dei Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7640 of 2023 Petitioner :- Dharam Dei Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Anil Kumar Saroj,Dileep Kumar Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶2

Heard Shri Sujeet Kumar, holding brief of Shri Abhishek Kumar Saroj, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

¶3

This petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Case No. T202114360302224 (Dharam Dei vs Bhupendra), under section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending before respondent No. 2, Tehsildar, Tehsil Kalan, district Jaunpur.

¶4

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.

¶5

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

¶6

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 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.

¶7

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.

¶8

Order Date :- 27.3.2023 Sazia

¶9

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

Dharam Dei v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Dei 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

Ruab Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bechu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ganga Prasad Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Abdul Naseem Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd. Shamim Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Smt. Rajkumari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others