Disposed¶17

Lavkush v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Amethi and Others

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024/4275/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lavkush v. State of U.P. (District Magistrate, Amethi); Matters Under Article 227 No. 4275 of 2024; expeditious disposal of Revision No.759/2024; Section 219 U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950; delay due to Bar abstention from judicial work; undertaking against unnecessary adjournments; no merits examined; disposed of; Jaspreet Singh, J.; Lucknow Bench; order dated 6.9.2024.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide pending Revision No.759/2024 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties without unnecessary adjournments to either side, subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate in early disposal; failing which the petitioner loses the benefit of the order. ¶17

Lavkush Vs State of U.P. Thru. District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct expeditious disposal of the petitioner's pending Revision No.759/2024 (under Section 219 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950) before respondent No.2.

¶9

Court's answer

Ends of justice are served by directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending Revision No.759/2024 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner must furnish an undertaking that he will not seek unnecessary adjournments and will cooperate in early disposal; if he fails to furnish it, he shall not be entitled to the benefit of the order.

¶15

Key takeaways

The Court has not examined the case of either party on merits; respondent No.2 shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matters Under Article 227 (No. 4275 of 2024), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Jaspreet Singh, J., order dated 6.9.2024): Petition by Lavkush seeking expeditious disposal of his pending Revision No.759/2024 under Section 219 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 before respondent No.2, where proceedings had stalled on majority of dates due to the Bar's resolution abstaining from judicial work. The Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No.2 to decide the revision most expeditiously with full opportunity of hearing but without unnecessary adjournments to either party, conditional upon the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to cooperate in early disposal, failing which he would not be entitled to the benefit of the order. The Court expressly did not examine the matter on merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61475

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4275 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Lavkush

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Amethi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhanu Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 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.5.

¶8

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.3 and 4 is dispensed with.

¶9

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of his Revision No.759/2024, under Section 219 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 pending before the respondent No.2.

¶10

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

¶11

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.2 could not advance on account of the resolution passed by the Members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.2 to consider and decide the pending Revision No.759/2024 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably

¶14

as expeditiously as possible.

¶15

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.

¶16

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.2 shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Rakesh/-

¶19

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

Lavkush v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Amethi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavkush v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Amethi and 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

Renu Tiwari and Others Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow and Others

Ram Kishor and Others. Vs D.D.C.and Others.

Vijay Shankar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Sheetla Baksh Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Gonda and 4 Others

Tamheed Fatima vs State of U.P., Thru. Chief Secy., Revenue and Ors.

Phool Jahan vs Tehsildar Judicial Salon Distt. Raebareli and Another