Disposed

Anisha Bano v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Distt. Amethi and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 May 2024/2199/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 concerning delayed disposal of a suit, the High Court disposed of the matter without deciding merits, granting the petitioner liberty to file an urgency application for early disposal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for early disposal of the pending case before respondent no.1.

Anisha Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34550

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2199 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Anisha Bano Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Distt. Amethi And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pravin Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned State Counsel.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to respondent no. 1, Up Ziladhikari, Tiloi, District Amethi to decide the Case No. 3027 of 2022, Computerized Case No. T202204710803027; 'Mohd. Yakoob versus Smt. Janini and others' filed under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the same is pending since 16.06.2022.

¶8

Learned State has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner and he has very fairly submitted that as per Paragraph-458 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code Manual, Rules 2016, which deals with speedy disposal, provides that the Court shall make endeavour to finally decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of institution of the suit and if the suit is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded. In case of petitioner, one year period has already expired on 16.06.2023.

¶9

On being asked whether any urgency application for early disposal of the case has been preferred before respondent no. 1, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that no such urgency application for early disposal of the appeal has been preferred by the petitioner and learned counsel for petitioner prays that the present writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the appeal pending before respondent no. 1 and he may be directed to decide the same within the stipulated time as this Court may fix.

¶10

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

¶11

On the request of learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before respondent no. 1

¶12

for early disposal of the Case No. 3027 of 2022, Computerized Case No. T202204710803027; 'Mohd. Yakoob versus Smt. Janini and others' filed under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. If any such application is preferred along with the certified copy of this order, it is expected that respondent no. 1 shall make an endeavour to decide the urgency application expeditiously, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.5.2024 DiVYa

¶14

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anisha Bano v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Distt. Amethi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anisha Bano v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Distt. Amethi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jhun Jhun Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ravendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Raebareli and 9 Others

Leelavati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Dile Rani Devi and Others Vs Commissioner Faizabad Division Faizabad and Others

Vijay Kumar Singh and Others Vs Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Chhotelal @ Chhotan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others