Savitri Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

Savitri Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of her objection dated 30.09.2021 in case no. 06012 of 2020 (computerized case no. T202004120106012, Chandrashekhar vs. Parasuram) and the case filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending since 22.07.2020 before respondent no. 2; if preferred, respondent no. 2 is expected to decide the urgency application expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without unnecessary adjournment to either party.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct respondent no. 2 (Naib Tehsildar Satrikh, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki) to decide the petitioner's objection dated 30.09.2021 in case no. 06012 of 2020 (T202004120106012, Chandrashekhar vs. Parasuram) and the application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending since 22.07.2020, within a stipulated time.

Court's answer

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, and without entering into the merit of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the objection dated 30.09.2021 in case no. 06012 of 2020 (T202004120106012, Chandrashekhar vs. Parasuram) including the case filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending since 22.07.2020 before respondent no. 2.

Ratio / Principle

If any such urgency application is preferred by the petitioner, it is expected that respondent no. 2 shall decide it expeditiously in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The decision of the urgency application by respondent no. 2 is to be made after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matters Under Article 227 No. 2326 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Manish Kumar, J.; order dated 10.5.2024; neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:36140). Petitioner Savitri Gupta sought a direction to respondent no. 2, Naib Tehsildar Satrikh, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki, to decide her objection dated 30.09.2021 in case no. 06012 of 2020 (computerized case no. T202004120106012, Chandrashekhar vs. Parasuram) and the application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending since 22.07.2020; the Section 34 application, being disputed by the private respondents, was to be decided within 90 days yet remained pending near about 4 years. Counsel conceded that no urgency application for early disposal had been filed before the court concerned. Learned Standing Counsel raised no objection. Without entering into the merit of the case, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application, it being expected that respondent no. 2 shall decide such application expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36140

Court No. - 18

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2326 of 2024

Petitioner :- Savitri Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondent no. 2 i.e. Naib Tehsildar Satrikh, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki to decide the objection filed by the petitioner on 30.09.2021 in case no. 06012 of 2020, computerized case no. T202004120106012 (Chandrashekhar vs. Parasuram) which is pending before him and to decide the aforesaid case filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is pending since 22.07.2020, within a stipulated time as this Court may fix.

It is further submitted that the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 is disputed by the private respondents as such, the same is to be decided within a period of 90 days from the day of submission of the application, whereas near about 4 years has been passed but the matter is still pending.

On being specifically asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that whether the petitioner has preferred any application for early disposal of the case by showing urgency in the matter before the Court concerned, it has been replied by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such application has been preferred before the Court concerned and petitioner has approached this Court directly for deciding the case expeditiously.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petition may be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the case before the Court concerned and if any such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided by the respondent no. 1 within the

stipulated time fix by this Court.

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

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the objection filed by the petitioner on 30.09.2021 in case no. 06012 of 2020, computerized case no. T202004120106012 (Chandrashekhar vs. Parasuram) which is pending before respondent no. 2 including the aforesaid case, filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is pending since 22.07.2020 before respondent no. 2. If any such application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 2 shall decide the urgency application preferred by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

Order Date :- 10.5.2024 Nitesh

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench