Dismissed

Chetram and Others v. Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024A227/4466/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition under Article 227 seeking directions for expeditious disposal of a pending revision application. The court held that since the petitioners did not diligently pursue their case causing unacceptable delays, no intervention was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no direction for expeditious disposal issued.

Chetram and Others vs Board of Revenue… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64705

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4466 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Chetram And Others

¶5

Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Kumar Srivastava,Pankaj Verma

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Parmanand Asthana, the learned Standing Counsel.

¶10

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought a direction to the Board of Revenue for expeditious disposal of their restoration application filed in Revision No.88 of 1994-95, which is pending since 29.08.2023.

¶11

Apparently, the revision was dismissed on 21.02.2022. A perusal of the order dated 21.02.2022 indicates that it was not dismissed because of non-appearance of the revisionist or his counsel. It is recorded in the order that the revisionist and their counsel were present before the Board. However, they had not complied with the order dated 02.04.2019 passed by the Board. A copy of the order dated 02.04.2019 passed by the Board, due to non-compliance whereof the revision was dismissed, has not been brought on record before this Court.

¶12

The application for recall of the order dated 21.02.2022, which was passed in presence of the revisionists and their counsel, was filed on 14.09.2023 i.e. after more than 1½ years since passing of the order dated 21.09.2022.

¶13

The aforesaid facts indicate that the revisionists have not diligently pursued their case at least since 02.04.2019. The revisionists have approached this Court seeking a direction to the Board of Revenue for expeditious disposal of the case, which has not been pursued by the revisionists themselves diligently. Therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to issue any direction for expeditious disposal of the proceedings instituted by the petitioners after an unreasonably delay

¶14

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶15

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 KR

¶17

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

Chetram and Others v. Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetram and Others v. Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 3 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

Ram Krishna Dwivedi and Another Vs Indrasen Rawat

Danish Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Vedant Maurya @ Kumari Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Chetram and Others Vs Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 3 Others

Rasid Ali Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lko. and 4 Others

Sant Bux Singh @ Santbaksa Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Lalganj, Pratapgarh and Others