Disposed

Sangeeta Yadav v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, Ayodhya and Ors.

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024/3756/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the Allahabad High Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to expedite the disposal of a pending revenue case. The Court dispensed with notice to one respondent and required the petitioner to provide an undertaking for non-adjournment.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent No.1 to decide Case No.00272/2020 expeditiously; petitioner must furnish undertaking of cooperation and no adjournments.

Sangeeta Yadav Vs Sub Divisional… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55216

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3756 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sangeeta Yadav Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, Ayodhya And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sajjad Husain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.3.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of her Case No.00272/2020, Computerized Case No.T202004230200272, under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No.1.

¶9

It is submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided.

¶10

Learned standing counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the extract of the order-sheet and has pointed out that in majority of the dates, the proceedings before the respondent No.1 could not advance on account of the resolution passed by the Members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that the petitioner will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall also cooperate in the early disposal of the aforesaid case.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the pending Case No.00272/2020, Computerized Case No.T202004230200272 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any

¶13

unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably as expeditiously as possible.

¶14

The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking, as mentioned above, along with a copy of this order. In case, if the petitioner does not furnish the aforesaid undertaking, then the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶15

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.1 shall decide the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Rakesh/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sangeeta Yadav v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, Ayodhya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Yadav v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, Ayodhya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ramsajivan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ramanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Colector/ District Magistrate, Amethi and Others

Israr Khan and Others Vs Naib Tehsildar Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Others

Devesh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Sangeeta Yadav vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, Ayodhya and Ors.