Disposed

Ram Pratap @ Ram Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2024/2436/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 regarding land demarcation, the petitioner sought directions to expedite a pending recall application. The court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application before the lower court, directing expeditious hearing thereafter, without deciding merit.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the recall application before the lower court.

Ram Pratap @ Ram Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37476

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2436 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Pratap @ Ram Pratap Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Achal Singh Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondent no. 3-Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil-Lambua, District Raebareli to decide the recall application dated 21.03.2024 preferred by the respondent no. 7 in the case filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, the Code, 2006) for demarcation of the land.

¶9

It is further submitted that the case filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Code, 2006 was decided in his favour by order dated 23.08.2023 against which a recall application has been preferred by the respondent nos. 7 and 8 in the said case on 18.10.2023, which was dismissed on 21.03.2024 for non prosecution and on the very same date, an another recall application was filed by the respondent no. 7, which is still pending.

¶10

It is further submitted that it is a usual practice that order passed under Section 24 of the Code, 2006 could not be implemented if any recall application is preferred against the said order, thus, the order passed in favour of the petitioner is not being implemented due to pendency of recall application preferred by the respondent no. 7.

¶11

On being specifically asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that whether petitioner has preferred any urgency application for early disposal of the recall application 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.

¶12

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 recall application before the Court concerned and if any such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶13

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

¶14

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 restoration application dated 21.03.2024 moved by the respondent no. 7 for recall of the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Case No. 3679 of 2023(Computerized Case No. T202304680303679 (Ram Pratap Vs. Gram Panchayat & others) filed under Section 24 of the Code, 2006 which is pending since 21.03.2024 before respondent no. 3. If any such urgency application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 3 shall decide the urgency 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.5.2024

¶16

Ashish

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Pratap @ Ram Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pratap @ Ram Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 9 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

Swami Ram Teerth Vidhyalaya Thru. Its Manager Sri Vivek Vikram Singh Vs the Court of Addl. Commissioner Administration and 3 Others

Shiv Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ram Karan and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

Pankaj Shakya Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and Another

Harish Chandra Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation , Sultanpur and Others

Gaya Prasad Vs Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Kurwar Dist. Sultanpur and 2 Others