Disposed

Anish Kumar v. Arvind Kumar and 6 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024/201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court directed the Board of Revenue to consider and decide the pending interim relief application filed by the petitioner in a revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 within four weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Board of Revenue to decide the pending interim relief application within four weeks after hearing the parties.

Anish Kumar Vs Arvind Kumar and 6 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15863

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 201 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Anish Kumar Respondent :- Arvind Kumar And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Ujagir Verma,Sachin Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.6 and 7 has been accepted by the ofÏce of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

In view of the order proposed by the Court, notice to the private respondents no.1 to 5 is dispensed with.

¶8

The petitioner has approached this Court with the limited prayer that he had preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 being aggrieved against the order dated 13.04.2023 and 08.10.2021.

¶9

It is submitted that the revision was filed on 25.05.2023 and an application seeking interim relief was also filed alongwith the revision. However, the Board of Revenue by its order dated 05.07.2023 admitted the revision but did not pass any order on the application for interim relief. It is further stated that though the matter was listed on 11.09.2023 again not effective hearing to take place and now the matter is listed on 03.04.2024.

¶10

It is further urged that the private respondents had file their caveat before the Board of Revenue and despite the copy having been received by the counsel yet they did not put in appearance and it is in the aforesaid backdrop that notices were issued. It is further urged that since the interim order was operating in favour of the petitioner as granted by the Appellate Authority, the same should have been extended by the revisional court

¶11

as well but despite admitting the revision the application for interim relief stands without any order.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the petition pending rather ends of justice can be met by directing the Board of Revenue to consider and decide the pending application for interim relief filed by the petitioner alongwith his revision bearing No.1547 of 2023 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments preferably within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed before the court concerned.

¶13

Since it has been informed that the next date is 03.04.2024, liberty is also granted to the petitioner to move an application for preponing the date upon which the Board of Revenue shall pass appropriate orders.

¶14

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Board of Revenue shall decide the application for interim relief strictly in accordance with law.

¶15

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 ank

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anish Kumar v. Arvind Kumar and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anish Kumar v. Arvind Kumar and 6 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

Yogendra Nath Tiwari and Others Vs Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Abha Pande Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Indian Contract and Unorganised Workers Union U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Parvez Alam Vs Union of India Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Ministry of Labour and Employment and 3 Others

Smt. Shivkanti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and Another

Smt. Sunita Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj, Lko. and 7 Others

Devi Prasad Mishra vs M/S Nayara Energy Limited (Earlier Essar Oil Limited) Thru Auth. Signatory/ Managing Director