In a writ petition under Article 227 seeking direction to decide a revenue case within specified timelines, the court held that no such direction could be issued in the absence of any legal impediment causing the delay, dismissing the petition.
No relief granted; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76979
Court No. - 17
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5490 of 2024
Petitioner :- Khursheed Alam
Respondent :- Learned Court Of Tehsildar, Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Salman,Ana Fatma,Mukhtar Ahamad
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard.
Present petition has been preferred to direct the respondent no. 1- Tehsildar, Tehsil Kunda, District Pratapgarh to decide the Case No. 04655/2018, Computerized Case No. T201802570104655 (Farook Ahmad and another Vs. Chhote Lal) under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 since the year 2018 within the time fixed by this Court whereas as per Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the application filed under Section 34 of the Code, 2006, if undisputed, it is to be decided within a period of 45 days and if there is any dispute, then the same shall be decided within a period of 90 days.
From perusal of the order sheets enclosed collectively with the present petition as annexure no. 3, it reveals that the case was fixed on 25.07.2022 and 05.09.2022 and on both the dates, the learned counsel for the respondent was present though no one appeared on behalf of applicant before trial Court. Thereafter, the case was fixed on several dates i.e. 12.09.2022, 30.10.2023, 19.03.2023, 24.05.2023, 03.05.2024, 19.05.2024, 30.07.2024, 06.08.2024, 14.08.2024 and 20.08.2024 and on all the said dates, the lawyers were abstaining from work.
Under these circumstances, no direction under Article 227 of Constitution of India can be issued to the Officer concerned to decide the case expeditiously.
Writ petition is dismissed .
However, in case, the petitioner moves an urgency application for early disposal of case before respondent no. 1, it is expected that the respondent no. 1 shall decide the urgency application preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 21.11.2024
Ashish
Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a direction under Article 227 to decide a revenue case expeditiously can be issued when no legal impediment preventing delay is shown.
Whether the officer can be directed to decide the case within the time fixed by the court after multiple adjournments due to counsel's absence.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Khursheed Alam
Learned Court Of Tehsildar, Tehsil Kunda
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
