Disposed

Krishna Sharma @ Kishan Sharma v. Addl. Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2024A227/1185/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a petition under Article 227 alleging delay in disposing of a revision regarding land management. The Hon'ble Court directed the authority to decide the pending case within six months, avoiding unnecessary adjournments, without examining the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Authority concerned to decide the pending revision within 6 months from the next date fixed, avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

Krishna Sharma @ Kishan Sharma vs Addl… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21048

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1185 of 2024 Petitioner :- Krishna Sharma @ Kishan Sharma Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Srivastava,Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqvi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Ravi Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

"(i) to issue an order or direction for expeditious disposal of Revision No.1195/2022 (Computerized Case No. C202204000001195), Krishna Sharma Vs Land Management Committee and other, pending before Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhaya Mandal, Ayodhaya within a fixed time frame;"

¶9

It is stated that as per Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 made under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with para 458(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, an appeal or revision should preferably be decided within a period of six months. However, in the instant case, the revision is pending since July 2022 and on account of pendency of the same, the petitioner, is suffering great hardship and mental agony. Prayer is to direct the authority concerned to decide the case within stipulated time.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the Authority concerned to decide the pending revision within 6 months from the next date fixed in the matter, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation. For conducting the proceedings in the time specified, unnecessary adjournments be avoided.

¶13

It is made clear that the 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 observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.3.2024

¶16

Jyoti/-

¶17

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

Krishna Sharma @ Kishan Sharma v. Addl. Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Sharma @ Kishan Sharma v. Addl. Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Ors.

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. Sundari and Ors. Vs Rahul Lekhwani and Another

Smt. Sita Devi and Ors. Vs Karamat Ali and Ors.

United India Insurance Company Ltd.Sultanpur Thro.B.Manager Vs Jag Prasad and Ors.

Savit Ram Objection Filed Vs Additional Commissioner Devipatan Mandal Gonda and Others

Muneshwar Dutt Mishra Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Another

Sumitra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others