Disposed

Raj Narain Pathak and 12 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Sub . Divisional Officer Distt. Sultanpur and 9 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2024A227/337/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 seeking direction to Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide a partition suit pending since 1987 under section 176 Z.A. Act. Court directed decision within six months after hearing parties, without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SDO, Kadipur to decide pending case within six months from next date fixed, without unnecessary adjournments.

Raj Narain Pathak and 12 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Sub… — Partition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6247

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 337 of 2024 Petitioner :- Raj Narain Pathak And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Sub . Divisional Officer Distt. Sultanpur And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dwijendra Prasad Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the sub Divisional Magistrate Kadipur DistrictSultanpur i.e.opp.party no. l to decide the case no.36/21/75/41 under section 176 Z. A. Act relating to village Vijethua, Rajapur, pargana Aldemau, Tehsil Kadipur, District-Sultanpur, Rampalat and others Vs. Devi Prasad and others, expeditiously within stipulated time as provided by this Hon' ble court the in the interest of justice."

¶9

Considering the fact that suit in issue indicated in the prayer clause for division of holdings is pending since 1987, the present petition is disposed of with direction to opposite party no.1/Sub Divisional Officer, Kadipur, District Sultanpur to consider and decide the pending case, quoted in the prayer clause, most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed before it.

¶10

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶11

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 23.1.2024

¶13

Jyoti/-

¶14

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

Raj Narain Pathak and 12 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Sub . Divisional Officer Distt. Sultanpur and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Narain Pathak and 12 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Sub . Divisional Officer Distt. Sultanpur and 9 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

Shiv Prakash Maurya Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Dist. Ambedkar Nager and 8 Others

Akatwa Nath and 2 Others Vs Settlement Officer Consolidation Judicial Barabanki and 9 Others

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Ghaseete @ Ghaseet and Others Vs Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P. Kasarbagh, Lucknow and Others

Trilokinath Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thru. Manager Awadhesh Kumar Sultanpur U.P. Vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Division Ayodhya and 4 Others

Raj Narain Pathak and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Sub . Divisional Officer Distt. Sultanpur and 9 Others