Disposed

Bharat Ram and Another v. Tehsildar Sohawal, Ayodhya and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2024A227/4528/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a petition under Article 227 directing the Tehsildar to expedite the disposal of Section 34 proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings of Case No. 821 of 2022 filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as expeditiously as possible.

Bharat Ram and Another vs Tehsildar Sohawal, Ayodhya… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65724

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4528 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Bharat Ram And Another Respondent :- Tehsildar Sohawal, Ayodhya And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava 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 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. 2 and 3 is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of his Case No. 821 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202204230821) Bharat Ram Vs. Shakuntala filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No.1.

¶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.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 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.1 to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings of Case No. 821 of 2022

¶14

(Computerized Case No. T202204230821) Bharat Ram Vs. Shakuntala filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as expeditiously as possible, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably.

¶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 consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 23.9.2024 Asheesh

¶19

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

Bharat Ram and Another v. Tehsildar Sohawal, Ayodhya and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Ram and Another v. Tehsildar Sohawal, Ayodhya 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

M/S Uttam Sucrotech International Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Harish Kumar Sharma vs The Ramala Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd. through its General Manager

Smt. Neelam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. of Home and 3 Others

C/M Jatashankar Shri Narayan Krishi Junior High School,Unnao Thru President Mannalal Yadav and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education,Lko. and 4 Others

Uday Randheer Singh vs Jaduveer Singh

Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., (Deptt. of Revenue), Lucknow and Others

Vimlesh Kumar and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Hardoi and 16 Others