Disposed

Savitri Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 May 2024A227/2326/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL under Article 227 regarding a four-year-old pending revenue objection dispute, the Allahabad High Court ordered the disposal with liberty for the petitioner to file an urgency application seeking early disposal of the matter by the subordinate court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to move an urgency application for early disposal of the pending revision objection under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36140

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2326 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Savitri Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondent no. 2 i.e. Naib Tehsildar Satrikh, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki to decide the objection filed by the petitioner on 30.09.2021 in case no. 06012 of 2020, computerized case no. T202004120106012 (Chandrashekhar vs. Parasuram) which is pending before him and to decide the aforesaid case filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is pending since 22.07.2020, within a stipulated time as this Court may fix.

¶8

It is further submitted that the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 is disputed by the private respondents as such, the same is to be decided within a period of 90 days from the day of submission of the application, whereas near about 4 years has been passed but the matter is still pending.

¶9

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

¶10

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 case 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

¶11

stipulated time fix by this Court.

¶12

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

¶13

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 objection filed by the petitioner on 30.09.2021 in case no. 06012 of 2020, computerized case no. T202004120106012 (Chandrashekhar vs. Parasuram) which is pending before respondent no. 2 including the aforesaid case, filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is pending since 22.07.2020 before respondent no. 2. If any such application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 2 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.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.5.2024 Nitesh

¶15

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

Savitri Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Gupta v. 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

Kodai and Others Vs Ram Avadh and Others

Awadhesh and 19 Others Objection Filed Vs Additional Collector Finance and Revenue Lucknow and 2 Others

Smt. Rashidan Vs U.P. Board of Revenue and Others

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

Kamarool Nisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Nayab Tehsildar (Diyara) Tehsil Jaisinghpur Distt. Sultanpur and 2 Others

Chhotelal @ Chhotan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others