Disposed

Ram Udit Pal and Another v. Add. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024/1151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Matters under Article 227. Petitioners sought direction for speedy disposal of a pending stay application before Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya, in a revenue appeal. The High Court, abstaining from merits, directed the authority to decide the application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the opposite party no. 1 to consider and decide the pending application for interim protection within one month.

Ram Udit Pal and Another Vs Add. Commissioner Judicial… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20214

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1151 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Udit Pal And Another Respondent :- Add. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Madhavan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Umesh Chandra

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Madhavan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Umesh Chandra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, Sri Mohan Singh, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Shashank Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel.

¶6

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

¶7

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶8

"I. To issue an order or direction, to Opposite party no. 1 to decide the stay application dated 22.12.2023, pending in Appeal No. 3014/2023, u/s 38 (4) U.P. Revenue Code (Ram Udit & Another Vs. Chandrabhaan and others), contained in Annexure no. 2. in the earliest possible time, in the interest of justice."

¶9

From the record as also from the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that application in issue, seeking interim protection is pending consideration since 22.12.2023 before the opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya, which was filed alongwith the appeal challenging the order dated 19.12.2023 passed in case no. 3113/2023, Computerized Case No. T202304710503113 (Chandrabhan Pal Versus Ram Udit and Others) instituted under Section 38(2) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (in short 'Code of 2006') and parties have already appeared before the concerned authority namely opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya, and an application for amendment seeking amendment in the memo of appeal is also pending consideration and as per statutory provisions the appeal of such nature should be decided within a period of six months.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with direction to opposite party no.1 to consider and decide the application dated 22.12.2023 in issue, seeking interim protection within a period of one month from the next date fixed in the matter.

¶11

It is expected from the opposite party no.1 to conclude the proceedings within time framed as provided under law, if possible and if there is no legal impediment in this regard.

¶12

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.3.2024

¶15

Jyoti/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Udit Pal and Another v. Add. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Udit Pal and Another v. Add. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Govind Prasad Vs Commissioner

Pawan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Badri Prasad and Another Vs Court Consolidation Officer Sadar 1ST Barabanki and 7 Others

Mohd.Basir Khan Vs A.D.C.

Ran Jeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kanchan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others