Disposed

Shiv Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2024/4146/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a writ petition regarding compliance of a previous order. The court disposed of the matter without adjudicating merits, directing the respondent to decide the petitioner's interim relief application within four weeks after hearing all parties, without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 4 to decide the application for interim relief preferred by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after

Shiv Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37314

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4146 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shiv Kumari

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

In regard to compliance of the order of this Court dated 10.05.2024, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that appearance of respondent no-4-Sub Divisional Magistrate/Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kadipur, Sultanpur may kindly be exempted as the elections of Lok Sabha, 2024 are scheduled to be held on 25.05.2024 in Sultanpur for which E.V.Ms have been received today and being Sub Divisional Officer/Magistrate, he has to look after all the things.

¶8

It is further submitted that the respondent no. 4 has provided all the relevant records to him for assistance of this Court.

¶9

It is further submitted that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that caveat was received by Ahlmadkar of respondent no. 4 without there being any entry in the register, which is required as per the statutes, is incorrect submission for the reason that it is the Ahlmadkar of the S.D.O, who receives the caveat and thereafter it is registered in the Caveat Register and the caveat preferred by the respondent no. 6 is registered in the caveat register on 01.04.2024 and registry slip is also appended.

¶10

It is further submitted that as far as submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that village has wrongly been mentioned in the caveat although it is true that name of village has wrongly been mentioned in the Caveat Register but learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute that the caveat was filed in case any case is filed against the order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Tehsildar concerned under Section 34 of of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶11

It is further submitted that the petitioner had appeared on 24.04.2024 and filed his objection and in his presence, date was fixed for 25.04.2024 and that is the reason as to why the case was not shown in the cause list of 25.04.2024 as the same was listed in pursuance of the order passed a day before.

¶12

It is further submitted that it is a settled law that if any caveat has been filed and the said fact has not been disclosed to the authority while passing the order then on receiving the intimation that the caveat was filed for not passing any adverse order against the caveator without hearing him, the authority can withdraw the order and fix the case for hearing to all the parties prior to passing of any order.

¶13

It is further submitted that respondent no. 3 has also instructed the learned Standing Counsel that the interim relief application of the petitioner will be heard and decided within a period of four weeks after hearing both the parties.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if it is the instruction of the respondent no. 3 that the interim relief application of the petitioner will be decided within a period of four weeks then the matter may be dispose of with the direction to the respondent no. 4 to decide the interim relief application within a period of four weeks without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶15

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 a direction to the respondent no. 4 to decide the application for interim relief preferred by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, as per the instructions given by respondent no. 3 to the learned Standing Counsel that the interim relief application will be decided within a period of four weeks.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.5.2024 Ashish

¶17

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

Shiv Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Britanti and 2 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 8 Others

Ajai Kumar Soni and Another Vs Sub Divisional Officer Maharajganj District Rae Bareli and 5 Others

Smt. Ashok Kumara Vs Naib Tehsildar Amethi District Amethi and 6 Others

Swami Ram Teerth Vidhyalaya Thru. Its Manager Sri Vivek Vikram Singh Vs the Court of Addl. Commissioner Administration and 3 Others

Ram Karan and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

Shiv Bahadur Singh and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others