Dismissed

Piyari @ Ram Piyari v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024A227/3722/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Article 227 seeking a direction to decide a pending revision application expeditiously, the Allahabad High Court held that the statutory remedy under Rule 494 of Chapter 50 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual is available. The court directed the petitioner to file an application before the Board of Revenue for expeditious hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application under Rule 494 of Chapter 50 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual before Board of Revenue for expeditious hearing within one week.

Piyari @ Ram Piyari vs Additional Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54835

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3722 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Piyari @ Ram Piyari Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Singh,Suneel Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶9

"(I) To direct the learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya/ opposite party no.1 to decide the application for stay filed by the petitioner on 23.04.2024 in Revision no.1027/2024 "Ram Piyari vs Shiv Kumar and ors" under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the opposite party no.1 filed against the judgment and order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amethi within stipulated period as framed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid case is pending before the respondent no.1 since long.

¶11

Hence this petition.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the petition and has referred to the amendment carried in the U. P. Revenue Court Manual where Chapter 50 has been introduced and in Rule 494, it has been provided that the Board of Revenue on an application duly supported by an affidavit can direct the expeditious hearing of any Suit, Appeal, Revision or other proceedings that is pending before the Court subordinate to it.

¶13

The opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya acts as a revenue courts subordinate to the Board of Revenue and therefore, it would be appropriate that this Court direct the petitioner to approach the Board of Revenue as statutory remedy is available under paragraph 494 of Chapter 50 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

¶14

This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an application for expeditious hearing under Rule 494 of Chapter 50 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, within one week from today, before the Board of Revenue alongwith the affidavit complete in all respect. The Board of Revenue shall consider the prayer of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.8.2024

¶16

Harshita

¶17

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

Piyari @ Ram Piyari v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyari @ Ram Piyari v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Dhirendra Singh Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial Iind, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Another

Madhurima Yadav Vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Another

Rohtas Presidential Towers Residents Welfare Association Thru President Sudhir Thakur and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Finance Lko and Ors.

Ram Chandra Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others