Disposed

Virendra Kumar v. Naib Tehsildar Dariyabad Tehsil Ram Sanehighat Dist. Barabanki and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024A227/4222/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, disposed of a petition seeking expedited disposal of a pending revenue case. The Court ordered the respondent authority to decide the pending proceedings expeditiously after hearing parties, without unnecessary adjournments, subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.1 to consider and decide pending proceedings of Case No.RST/01084/2018 expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Virendra Kumar vs Naib Tehsildar Dariyabad… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60617

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4222 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Respondent :- Naib Tehsildar Dariyabad Tehsil Ram Sanehighat Dist. Barabanki And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 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 Nos.1 and 2 is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of his Case No.RST/01084/2018 Computerized Case No.T201804120201084 (Virendra Kumar & Arvind Kumar Vs. Mayawati), which is pending before the respondent No.1.

¶9

It is urged 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 ordersheet and has pointed out that in majority of the dates, the proceedings before the respondent No.1 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 she will not seek any

¶13

unnecessary adjournment, except in exceptional circumstances and shall also cooperate in the early disposal of the aforesaid case.

¶14

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.1 to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Case No.RST/01084/2018 Computerized Case No.T201804120201084 (Virendra Kumar & Arvind Kumar Vs. Mayawati) as expeditiously as possible, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶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 the petitioner 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 :- 4.9.2024 ank

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Virendra Kumar v. Naib Tehsildar Dariyabad Tehsil Ram Sanehighat Dist. Barabanki and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar v. Naib Tehsildar Dariyabad Tehsil Ram Sanehighat Dist. Barabanki 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

Smt. Anusuiya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Sumiran @ Ram Sumiran Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti and Another

Shitla Prasad Yadav Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial ), Tehsil Lambhua, Sultanpur and Others

Rudra Nath Misra vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 8 Others

Smt. Anita vs Naib Tehsildar and Another

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Tax Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others vs Krishna Kumar Omar Vaishya and Another