Imtiyaz Khan Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial )… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

Imtiyaz Khan Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial )… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to opposite party No. 1 (Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division) to decide Revision No. 478/2023, computerized No. 202304000000478 (Karamulla Khan versus Imtiyaz Khan), most expeditiously, as per law, without unnecessary adjournments, preferably within six months from the next date fixed, if there is no other legal impediment; petitioner permitted to implead the necessary opposite party; notice to private respondents dispensed with; merits left unexamined.

Issue for consideration

Whether opposite party No. 1, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, should be directed to decide Revision No. 478/2023 (Karamulla Khan versus Imtiyaz Khan) under section 210 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending since February 2023, within a stipulated time. +1 more

Court's answer

Opposite party No. 1 directed to consider and decide the pending revision, Case No. 478/2023, computerized No. 202304000000478 (Karamulla Khan versus Imtiyaz Khan), most expeditiously, as per law, without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner permitted to implead the necessary opposite party during the course of the day, the State counsel having no objection.

Key takeaways

Issuance of notice to the private respondent(s) dispensed with in view of the order proposed to be passed.ratio¶8
The decision is to be rendered preferably within six months from the next date fixed before the authority, if there is no other legal impediment.ratio¶11
The Court has not examined the case of either party on merits; the authority concerned is free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matters Under Article 227 No. 783 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Saurabh Lavania, J.; order dated 20.2.2024). Petitioner Imtiyaz Khan sought a direction to opposite party No. 1, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, to decide Revision No. 478/2023, computerized No. 202304000000478 ('Karamulla Khan versus Imtiyaz Khan'), under section 210, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — pending since February 2023 — and further to decide his recall application dated 16-03-2023 concerning land Gata No. 2907/0.923 hectare at Village Tato Muraii, Pargana Chanda, Tehsil Lambhua, District Sultanpur. Considering the pendency and para 458(2) of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the authority to consider and decide the revision most expeditiously, as per law, without granting unnecessary adjournments, preferably within six months from the next date fixed, if there is no other legal impediment. The Court clarified it had not examined the merits and the authority remains free to decide strictly in accordance with law. Impleadment of the necessary opposite party was permitted and notice to private respondents was dispensed with.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14729

Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 783 of 2024 Petitioner :- Imtiyaz Khan Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Judicial ) Ayodhya Division,Ayodhya And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Yadav,Anurag Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard Sri Anand Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashank Singh learned Counsel for the State and Sri Mohan Singh, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

At the very outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that inadvertently the proper necessary opposite party could not be arrayed in the memo of petition and as such he may be permitted to implead the proper opposite party.

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

Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to implead the necessary opposite party during the course of the day.

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the privaterespondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

"to issue an appropriate order or direction to opposite party No. 1 i.e. the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division Ayodhya to decide the revision bearing NO.478/2023, computerized NO. 202304000000478, filed by opposite party No. 2, "Karamulla Khan versus Imtiyaz Khan", under section 210 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within time as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and further to decide the recall application dated 16-03-2023 filed by the petitioner and others before the opposite party No. 1, regarding land Gata No. 2907/0.923 Hect., situated at Village Tato Muraii, Pargana Chanda, Tehsil Lambhua, District Sultanpur."

Considering the facts as stated, particularly the period of pendency of the revision, which appears to be pending since February 2023 as also taking note of statutory provisions including para 458(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual , the present petition is disposed of with direction to opposite party no.1, to consider and decide the pending revision in issue i.e. Case No. 478/2023, computerized No. 202304000000478 (Karamulla Khan versus Imtiyaz Khan), most expeditiously, as per law, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed before it, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

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

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 20.2.2024/Jyoti/-

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench