Disposed

Balendra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2023WRIC/7786/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed for expeditious disposal of a pending objection case to prevent prejudice. Court directed authorities to conclude proceedings within three months, allowing personal appearance if lawyers fail to cooperate to protect property rights.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conclude pending objection proceedings within three months, permitting personal appearance if lawyers do not cooperate to protect property rights.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7786 of 2023 Petitioner :- Balendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanju Lata,Amish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Kaushal Kishore Mani

¶2

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondents.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of objection of the petitioner dated 08.10.2021 in Case No.T202109600404144 (Gram Sabha v. Balendra) under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 within stipulated period.

¶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 the respondent no.2-Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Deoband, District-Saharanpur to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶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 Jyotsana

¶10

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

Balendra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balendra 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

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

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

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

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