Disposed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023WRIC/8318/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction for expeditious disposal of a suit for division of holdings under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code-2006 where a preliminary decree was passed in 2018 but final decree remained pending. Court directed respondent authorities to conclude proceedings within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to conclude the suit proceedings expeditiously within two months.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8318 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondents and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Gaon Sabha.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Suit No.T-201714291003816 (Raj Kumar v. Ram Raj) under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 within stipulated period.

¶7

The contention of the petitioner is that in a suit for division of holdings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006, preliminary decree has already been prepared on 13.07.2018 and the matter is posted for preparation of final decree and during the pendency of the said proceedings, constructions are being raised by the other parties to the proceedings.

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

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-Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, District-Ghazipur to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶11

In case, the lawyers do not cooperate with the proceedings either

¶12

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.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.4.2023

¶14

Jyotsana

¶15

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

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 10 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

Aslam Vs State of U.P. and 22 Others

Beni Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Samim Bano Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kalimum Nisha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others