Dinesh Chandra Vs Board of Revenue, Lucknow Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

Dinesh Chandra Vs Board of Revenue, Lucknow Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of case no. REV/2269/2021 before respondent no. 1; respondent no. 1 expected to decide such application expeditiously in accordance with law, after opportunity of hearing, without unnecessary adjournments, if there is no other legal impediment.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no. 1 (Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow) should be directed to decide the pending revision case no. REV/2269/2021 (computerized case no. R20211046002269) under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. +1 more

Court's answer

On the petitioner's request and without entering into the merits, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the case pending before respondent no. 1.

Key takeaways

If an urgency application is preferred, respondent no. 1 is expected to decide it expeditiously in accordance with law (with hearing to parties, without unnecessary adjournments, if there is no other legal impediment); this is expressed as an expectation, not a command.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 17), Manish Kumar, J. — MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5501 of 2024, Dinesh Chandra v. Board Of Revenue, Lucknow Thru. Member And 19 Others; Order Date 20.11.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:76501. The petition sought a direction to respondent no. 1, Member, Board Of Revenue, Lucknow, to decide pending case no. REV/2269/2021 (computerized case no. R20211046002269) under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, titled 'Dinesh Chandra vs. Shri Shambhu Sharan, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow'. Counsel submitted that the six-month period mandated by Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 had already expired, but conceded on being asked that no urgency application for early disposal had been filed before the Court concerned, the petitioner having approached the High Court directly. Learned Standing Counsel had no objection to the prayer. Without entering into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application, expressing the expectation that respondent no. 1 decide such application expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and without unnecessary adjournments, if there is no other legal impediment.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76501

Court No. - 17

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5501 of 2024

Petitioner :- Dinesh Chandra

Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, Lucknow Thru. Member And 19 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Kumar Verma,Ajay Kumar Chuabey

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondent no.1 i.e. Member, Board Of Revenue, Lucknow to decide the case no.REV/2269/2021 having computerized case no. R20211046002269 under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 titled as 'Dinesh Chandra vs. Shri Shambhu Sharan, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow' pending before him.

Learned Counsel has further submitted that Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 mandates that the revisional court shall make endeavour to decide the revision within a period of six months from the date of filing of revision whereas in the present case the stipulated period under Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 has already been expired.

On being specifically asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that whether petitioner has preferred any application for early disposal of the revision by showing urgency in the matter before the Court concerned, it has been replied by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such application has been preferred before the Court concerned and petitioner has approached this Court directly for deciding the case expeditiously.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petition may be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the revision before the Court concerned and if any such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided by the respondent no. 1 within

the stipulated time fix by this Court.

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

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 liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the aforesaid case, pending before respondent no. 1. If any such application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 1 shall decide the urgency application preferred by the petitioner expeditiously 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 :- 20.11.2024 Nitesh

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