Disposed

Mansha Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC29 May 2024A227/2645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought amendment to prayer clause and direction to Settlement Officer to decide pending recall application. Court allowed amendment and disposed of petition with liberty to file urgency application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to amend prayer clause; petition disposed with liberty to file urgency application for disposal of recall application.

Mansha Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2645 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Mansha Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ashraf Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that due to typographical error, in the prayer clause, the words 'recall application filed in' have been left to be mentioned and prayer has been made for deciding the appeal whereas it should be to direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the recall application pending in the appeal and prays for making necessary amendment/correction in the prayer during the course of the day.

¶6

Learned State counsel has no objection to the prayer made.

¶7

As prayed, learned counsel for petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction/amendment i.e. to write 'recall application filed in' in the prayer clause during the course of the day.

¶8

It is further submitted that the present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to respondent no. 2 i.e. Court of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Tehsil Milkipur, District Faizabad to decide the recall application preferred by the petitioner for recalling the ex-parte order dated 10.07.2012 in the appeal no. 1094/2124 preferred by respondent no. 3, which is still pending.

¶9

On being specifically asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that whether petitioner has preferred any urgency application for early disposal of 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 urgency application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for early disposal of the recall application.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present writ petition may be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the recall application, and if any, such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided by the respondent no. 2 within the stipulated time this Court may fix.

¶11

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

¶12

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the recall application preferred by the petitioner for recalling the exparte order dated 10.07.2012 in the appeal no. 1094/2124. If any such urgency application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 2 shall make an endeavour to decide the urgency application expeditiously, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.5.2024 DiVYa

¶14

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mansha Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansha Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kashi Ram Vs D.D.C. and Ors.

Ramu (Died) and Others Vs Addl. Commissioner, Judicial, 2ND, Lko. Division Lko. and 3 Others

Manju Agrahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Bhagwan Dei Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial Lucknow and Ors.

Sarita Gautam Vs Naib Tehsildar, Thesil Purwa, Distt. Unnao and Others

Mansha Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others