Disposed

Kailashi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024A227/3374/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court directed the respondent authority to dispose of pending revenue proceedings expeditiously within three months without unnecessary adjournments. The petitioner was required to furnish an undertaking of cooperation to benefit from the order.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.2 to decide pending Case No.T202204040202551 under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within three months.

Kailashi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50310

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3374 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Kailashi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nijam Ahamad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent No.3 is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of his Case No.T202204040202551 (Kailashi Vs. Rama Shankar) filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No.2.

¶9

It is submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided.

¶10

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶11

Learned standing counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the extract of the order-sheet and has pointed out that in majority of the dates, the proceedings before the respondent No.2 could not advance on account of the resolution passed by the Members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that the petitioner will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall also cooperate in the early disposal of the aforesaid case.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.2 to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings of Case No.T202204040202551

¶14

(Kailashi Vs. Rama Shankar) filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No.2 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.

¶15

The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking, as mentioned above, along with a copy of this order. In case, if the petitioner does not furnish the aforesaid undertaking, then the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶16

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

¶17

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 Asheesh

¶19

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

Kailashi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailashi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Ors.

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

Shubham Singh Alias Sibbu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Narendra Dev Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and Others

Seema Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Tehsildar Tehsil Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur and Others

Kailashi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Ors.

Madhuri Devi vs State Election Commission, U.P., Thru. Election Commissioner and Others

Suresh Chandra Mishra vs Sri Anand Kumar Singh, Managing Director Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Lko.