Disposed¶9

Ramdas and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2023WRIC/8890/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Kshitij Shailendra, J., 12.4.2023) disposes WRIT-C 8890/2023, Ramdas v. State of U.P., directing SDM Mau Nath Bhanjan to decide U.P. Revenue Code S.21/24 Case No.4006/2021 within four months; lawyer-abstention protocol: personal appearance allowed, property rights protected, disposal strictly per law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mau Nath Bhanjan, District Mau) to conclude Case No.4006 of 2021 expeditiously, preferably within four months of production of a certified copy of the order, after full opportunity of hearing, with ancillary directions permitting personal appearance upon lawyers' non-cooperation and protecting parties' property rights. ¶9

Ramdas and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should issue a direction for expeditious disposal of Case No.4006 of 2021 (Computerized Case No.T202115510104006) under Section 21/24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mau Nath Bhanjan, District Mau, within a stipulated period.

¶7

Court's answer

Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mau Nath Bhanjan, District Mau, to conclude the proceedings of Case No.4006 of 2021 expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

If the lawyers do not cooperate with the proceedings, whether on account of abstention from work or otherwise, the court concerned shall permit personal appearance of the parties to address it on the merits of the case.

¶10

Key takeaways

The authority/court concerned shall take special care that the property rights of the parties are not adversely affected merely on account of non-cooperation of the lawyers.ratio¶10
The 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.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 8890 of 2023, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Kshitij Shailendra, J., decided 12.4.2023) filed by Ramdas and 11 others seeking expeditious disposal of Case No.4006 of 2021 (Computerized Case No.T202115510104006) under Section 21/24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mau Nath Bhanjan, District Mau. The State raised no serious objection. Petition disposed of with a direction to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within four months from production of a certified copy of the order, after full opportunity of hearing; if lawyers abstain from work or otherwise do not cooperate, personal appearance of the parties is to be permitted; the parties' property rights are not to suffer from lawyers' non-cooperation; and the case is to be disposed of strictly in accordance with law on critical analysis of the record.

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8890 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramdas And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulab Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Yadav, holding brief of Sri Gulab Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Sri Abhinav Jaiswal, holding brief of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-Gaonsabha.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Case No.4006 of 2021 (Computerized Case No.T202115510104006), under Section 21/24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulated period.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

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 Magistrate, Mau Nath Bhanjan, District Mau 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Anil K. Sharma

¶13

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramdas and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdas and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Khelawan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 20 Others

Motilal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Markandey Rai Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Malti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others