Disposed

Sarvjeet Singh and Others v. State of the U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2024/2688/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench under Art. 227 allowed a petition seeking expeditious disposal of a revenue case pending for over eight years. The Court directed the petitioner to file an urgency application before the respondent, without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to petitioner to file an urgency application for early disposal of the pending case before Respondent No. 2.

Sarvjeet Singh and Others Vs State of the U.P. Thru. Its… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41188

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2688 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sarvjeet Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of The U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

Present petition has been preferred to direct the respondent no. 2-Sub District Magistrate to decide the Case No. 372 of 2028, Computerized Case no. T20161043061908 titled as Rashmi Vs. Raj Kaur and others, under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is pending before him since 19.05.2016.

¶9

It is further submitted that proceedings under Section 116 of the Code, 2006 was instituted by the respondent no. 4 and the petitioners have been substituted in the said proceedings after demise of their mother.

¶10

It is further submitted that as per Rule 109 (10) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, respondent no. 2 is to decide the case within a period of six months and in case of petitioner, six months' period has already expired.

¶11

On being specifically asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that whether petitioner has preferred any application for early disposal of the proceedings pending under Section 116 of the Code, 2006 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 application 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 proceedings pending under Section 116 of the Code, 2006 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.

¶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 aforesaid case, which is pending since 19.05.2016 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.5.2024 DiVYa

¶16

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

Sarvjeet Singh and Others v. State of the U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvjeet Singh and Others v. State of the U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 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

Smt. Bhagwan Dei Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial Lucknow and Ors.

Sarita Gautam Vs Naib Tehsildar, Thesil Purwa, Distt. Unnao and Others

Mansha Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Smt. Sarla Devi Mishra @ Sarla Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. for Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Dinesh Kumar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 46 Others

Ram Feran Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti and 2 Others