Disposed

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

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024A227/3258/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 seeking expeditious disposal of a revenue case, noting no extraordinary circumstances existed. Liberty was granted to move the trial court for expediting. The petition was disposed with directions.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move application for urgency before concerned authority within two weeks; direction to dispose if urgency prima facie satisfied.

Rinkoo vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48466

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3258 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rinkoo

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Niwas Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Ram Niwas Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶8

In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶9

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer has been made for expeditious disposal of Case No. 681/2024, Computerized CAse NO. T202404230300681 (Rindoo Vs. Sitaram) under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petition would be sufficiently met in case Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Bikapur, Distrct - Ayodhya considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶11

Considering the fact that the case was filed in 2024 of which proceedings are underway and from the perusal of the writ petition, there is no disclosure of any extra ordinary circumstance as to why this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the trial court to decide the same expeditiously.

¶12

This Court is conscious of the fact that the trial courts are burdened to heavy dockets and in a routine manner directions cannot be passed to the trial court to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously. It is when some extra ordinary circumstance is made out only then it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There also liberty should be given to the petitioner to place his grievances before the concerned authority who after looking into the urgency as well as dockets situation and pass appropriate orders to expedite

¶13

the case. In the present case no such circumstances has been mentioned or made out requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditious disposal of the case before concerned authority. In case, such application is moved within two weeks from today, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say, within a period of three weeks thereafter. In case, the trial court is prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out it shall pass suitable order thereon.

¶15

With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of.

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Ravi/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinkoo v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. 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

Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Purnmasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 8 Others

R.A.V. Public School,Ilfatganj,Tanda Ambedkar Nagar Thru. Vice Principal Sri Vikas vs Central Board of Secondary Education Thru. Secy./Controller of Examination,New Delhi and Another

Sabir Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ram Das Prajapati and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Others