Disposed

Smt. Anita v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2024A227/4547/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Article 227 writ proceedings, the Allahabad High Court directed the respondent officer to decide pending revenue proceedings expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments, conditioned on the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to cooperate in the disposal process; the petition was disposed of without merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to decide pending proceedings of Case No.2674/2023 expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments, provided petitioner furnishes an undertaking of cooperation.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66024

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4547 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Anita Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kushal Tiwari,Rama Shankar Pandey

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of her Case No.2674/2023, Computerized Case No.T-202304230702674, under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No.2.

¶10

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.

¶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 decide the pending proceedings of Case No.2674/2023, Computerized Case No.T-202304230702674 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any

¶14

unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably as expeditiously as possible.

¶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 respondent No.2 shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 Rakesh/-

¶19

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

Smt. Anita v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anita v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow 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

Keshav Prasad and Others Vs Consolidation. Commissioner, Lucknow and Others

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

Bharat Ram and Another Vs Tehsildar Sohawal, Ayodhya and 2 Others

Ram Shanker vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Sarojni Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Chandra Shekhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue), Lucknow and 3 Others