Disposed

Ghanshyam Dubey v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Tarabganj District Gonda and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2024/2469/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 petition, the petitioner urged the High Court to direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide a five-year-old revision. The Court fixed the case, granted liberty to file an urgency application, and directed the Magistrate to decide it expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move urgency application; SS Magistrate directed to decide urgency application expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

Ghanshyam Dubey Vs the Sub Divisional… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38288

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2469 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Dubey Respondent :- The Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Tarabganj District Gonda And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Laxmi Kant Pathak,Jyotindra Prakash Pathak,Malik Faiyaz Ahmed Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Present petition has been preferred to direct the respondent no. 1-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil, Tarabganj, District Gonda to decide the R.S.T. No. 2748 of 2016, Computerized Case No. T201670830062748( Vindeshwari Prasad Vs. Smt. Rani Devi and others) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within the time fixed by this Court.

¶8

It is further submitted that revision is pending before the respondent no. 1 since the year 2016 and as per Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, it is provided that the revisional court shall finally decide the revision within a period of six months from the date of filing of the revision. In the case of petitioner, the stipulated period has already been expired.

¶9

On being specifically asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that whether the petitioner has preferred any urgency application for early disposal of the revision by showing urgency in the matter before the Court concerned, it is 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 revision expeditiously.

¶10

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 revision before the respondent no. 1 and he may be directed to take a decision on the application of the petitioner within the time fixed by this Court.

¶11

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

¶12

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 before the respondent no. 1 in R.S.T. No. 2748 of 2016, Computerized Case No. T201670830062748( Vindeshwari Prasad Vs. Smt. Rani Devi and others) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 , which is pending since the year 2016. If any such urgency application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 1 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.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.5.2024 Ashish

¶14

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

Ghanshyam Dubey v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Tarabganj District Gonda and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Dubey v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Tarabganj District Gonda 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

Ram Prakash and Another Vs Dy. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Kalpram Yadav @ Kalapram Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Shravasti and Others

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Its Member Judicial and 10 Others

Shivnandan Verma Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Judicial) Haidergarh,Distt. Barabanki and 4 Others

Neha Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

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