Remanded

Indramani Singh v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023WRIC/997/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition directed the Deputy Collector to expedite proceedings and decide a pending restoration application regarding a partition case filed under Section 161 of the U.P.A.A. & L.R. Act, to be disposed within four months after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no. 2 to decide the restoration application within four months after hearing parties.

Indramani Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 997 of 2023 Petitioner :- Indramani Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramagya Shukla,Radha Mohan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Azad Rai

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Radha Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 and perused the record.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the restoration application dated 15.12.2011, in Case No. 13 of 2006, now Comuter Case No. T202002030802891, under Section 161 U.P.A.A. & L.R. Act.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 had filed a case for partition under Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before respondent no. 2 namely Deputy Collector, Tehsil Meja, District Prayagraj. The said case was allowed vide order dated 29.04.2010 behind the back of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner had moved a restoration application on 15.10.2011 for recalling the order dated 29.01.2010 which is still pending for disposal. Lastly it is submitted that on account of delaying tactics adopted by respondent no. 4, the aforesaid restoration application could not be decided and is still pending since 2011.

¶7

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without going into merit of the case, the respondent no. 2 namely Deputy Collector, Tehsil Meja, District Prayagraj is directed to expedite the proceedings and decide the aforesaid restoration application, if possible, within the period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting any unnecessary adjournment, unless there is any legal impediment.

¶8

With aforesaid direction, the instant petition is finally disposed of.

¶9

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 sailesh

¶10

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indramani Singh v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indramani Singh v. State of U P and 3 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

Pankaj Gautam and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Jagdish Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Seema Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Queen of Apostles Society St.Marys Convent Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shashi Kapoor Gupta Vs State of U P and 9 Others

Lal Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others