Disposed

Arunesh Chandra v. Sub Divisional Officer, Savaijpur, Tahsil Savaijpur, Hardoi and Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024/3125/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought expedition of remanded land-holding division proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer. The officer had revived proceedings after remand but hearings were stalled by a bar strike and the petitioner's absence. The court declined to order expedition, leaving the petitioner free to seek it from the concerned court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Arunesh Chandra Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Savaijpur, Tahsil… — Partition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47586

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3125 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Arunesh Chandra Respondent :- Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Savaijpur, Tahsil Savaijpur, Hardoi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Charan Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that a suit for division of land holding has been initiated which came to be decided on 28.05.2024. An appeal was preferred against the said judgement which has been allowed on 13.06.2024 and the matter has been remanded to the respondent no.1 to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶8

It is in this context that the Court had required the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions who has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 11.07.2024 under the signature of the Sub Divisional OfÏcer concerned who has stated that after the remand the proceedings have been revived on 25.06.2024 and since thereafter two dates have been fixed that since the Members of Bar have been abstaining from work, hence the proceedings could not taken forward and now that the matter is listed on 15.07.2024.

¶9

Considering the fact that the Sub Divisional OfÏcer has initiated the proceedings in pursuance of the remand order and it is the petitioner and his counsel who has not appeared on account of the resolution it cannot be said that the Sub Divisional OfÏcer is delaying proceedings.

¶10

In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to pass any order for expedition leaving it open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the court concerned and in case if such an application is moved, the Court shall pass appropriate orders.

¶11

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the court concerned shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 12.7.2024 ank

¶13

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arunesh Chandra v. Sub Divisional Officer, Savaijpur, Tahsil Savaijpur, Hardoi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Arunesh Chandra v. Sub Divisional Officer, Savaijpur, Tahsil Savaijpur, Hardoi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sachchidanand and Another Vs Girja Sonkar and Others

Jaiwanti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Another

Ram Sagar Yadav vs Co-Operative Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Its Registrar and 6 Others

Lallu Gupta @ Ravi Chand Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Tamseel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Anubhag Lko.

Abdul Rasheed @ Rashid Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Teh Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 3 Others