Disposed

Sonkali v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2024A227/2193/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of objections against a recall order in a Section 34 mutation case pending before the Tehsildar, without examining the merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move an urgency application for early disposal of objections; directed trial court to decide such application expeditiously.

Sonkali vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34136

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2193 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sonkali

¶5

Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Nigam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

Present petition has been preferred with the following main relief:-

¶9

" to issue order or direction directing to the opposite party no. 2 i.e. the Tehsildar, Tehsil, Aalapur, District Ambekar Nagar to decide the mutation case Computerized No. T202204040403948 which is filed under Section 34 Revenue Code, 2006 (Sonkali Vs. Baran) which is pending since 10.10.2022,within a stipulated time as possible in the interest of justice as contained in Annexure no. 1 within specific stipulated period. "

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the mutation case of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Act, 2006 was decided on 05.04.2023. Against thereto, respondent no. 3 has filed a recall application on 11.10.2023 for recalling the order dated 05.04.2023. Against the said recall application, petitioner has filed her objections on 03.11.2023 and the same has yet not been decided whereas around 6 months have been passed.

¶11

On being specifically asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that whether petitioner has preferred any urgency application for early disposal of the objections against the recall application 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.

¶12

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 objections against the recall application before the Court concerned and if any such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided within the stipulated time by this Court may fix.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made

¶14

by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

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 objections against the recall application in mutation case Computerized No. T202204040403948 filed under Section 34 Revenue Code, 2006 (Sonkali Vs. Baran), which is pending since 03.11.2023 before respondent no. 2. If any such urgency application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 2 shall decide the urgency application 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.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.5.2024 Ashish

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sonkali v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonkali v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 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

Chandra Bali and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Ram Shankar and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Ram Achal and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Jhun Jhun Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ravendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Raebareli and 9 Others

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