Disposed

Mohammad Sabir v. State of U.P. Thru. Sub Divisional Magistrate Judicial Dist. Sultanpur and 7 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2024/466/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner sought expeditious disposal of a partition suit pending since 2022 to alleviate hardship. The Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide the case most expeditiously within six months, without granting adjournments, after a full hearing, without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide Case No. 1234 of 2022 within six months, without granting adjournments and after a full hearing.

Mohammad Sabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Sub Divisional… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9763

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 466 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohammad Sabir Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Sub Divisional Magistrate Judicial Dist. Sultanpur And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Pandey,Ankit Pandey,Anurag Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent(s) is dispensed with.

¶9

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Case No.1234 of 2022, Computerized Case No.T202204680701234 under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the authority concerned.

¶10

It is stated that as per Rule 109(10) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, a suit for partition should be decided preferably within a period of six months, however, in the instant case, the case is pending since 2022 and on account of pendency of the aforesaid case, petitioner is suffering great hardship. In these circumstances, indulgence of this Court is required.

¶11

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶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 Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil-Jaisinghpur, District-Sultanpur to consider and decide the Case No.1234 of 2022, Computerized Case No.T202204680701234, most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed in the case, if possible and if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶13

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.2.2024 Vinay/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Sabir v. State of U.P. Thru. Sub Divisional Magistrate Judicial Dist. Sultanpur and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Sabir v. State of U.P. Thru. Sub Divisional Magistrate Judicial Dist. Sultanpur and 7 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.Prabhawati Shahi Vs Tehsildar Tehsil Balrampur Dist. Balrampur and 2 Others

Shyama Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Abdul Jabbar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 11 Others

Bramha Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Smt. Guddi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Sadanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue and 5 Others