Disposed¶12

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue and 6 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2024/2575/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ; Section 333 U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950; Revision No. 858 of 2024 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. Gaon Sabha); stay application; interim relief application; urgency application; expeditious disposal; Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal; opportunity of hearing; no unnecessary adjournments; disposed of without entering into merits; Standing Counsel no objection.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the interim relief application filed along with Revision No. 858 of 2024 before respondent no. 2; respondent no. 2 expected to decide any such urgency application expeditiously in accordance with law, after opportunity of hearing and without unnecessary adjournments. ¶12

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no. 2 (Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya) ought to be directed to decide the stay application in Revision No. 858 of 2024, pending since 30.03.2024. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

On the request of counsel and without entering into the merits, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the interim relief application filed along with the revision before respondent no. 2.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

If such an urgency application is preferred, respondent no. 2 is expected to decide it expeditiously in accordance with law, looking into the urgency mentioned therein, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either party.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Manish Kumar, J.) — Article 227 matter No. 2575 of 2024: Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. thr. Secy. Revenue and 6 others. The petitioner sought a direction to respondent no. 2, Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya, to decide the stay application in Revision No. 858 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. C202404000000858, Sanjay Kumar Vs. Gaon Sabha), preferred under Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and pending since 30.03.2024. Counsel conceded that no urgency application for early disposal of the interim relief application had been filed below. Without entering into the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application before respondent no. 2, who is expected to decide it expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and without unnecessary adjournments. Order dated 25.5.2024.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39813

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2575 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue And 6 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7.

¶8

Present writ petition has been preferred to direct the respondent no. 2-Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya to decide the stay application in Revision No. 858 of 2024 Computerized Case No. C202404000000858 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. Gaon Sabha) preferred under Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 which is pending since 30.03.2024.

¶9

On being asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner whether petitioner has preferred any urgency application for early disposal of the interim relief application filed alongwith the revision, learned counsel for the petitioner has replied that no such application has been preferred before the Court concerned and petitioner has approached this Court directly for deciding the case expeditiously.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present writ petition may be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the interim relief application before the Court concerned and if any such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided by the respondent no.2 within the stipulated time fix 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 writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of interim relief application filed alongwith the aforesaid revision before the

¶13

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 looking into the urgency mentioned therein 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.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.5.2024 Nitesh

¶15

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

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anoop Mishra Alias Anoop Kumar Vs Learned Additional Commissioner 2ND Lko. Division Lko. and Others

Budhram @ Budhau Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ram Charan Vs Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division and 2 Others

Ram Sumer Vs Addl. Commissioner Faizabad Mandal Faizabad Now Ayodhya and Others

Shrimati Maryam @ Arshi Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Thru. Chairman Lko. and 3 Others

Devideen Vs Addl. Commissioner Lko. Division Lko. and 16 Others