Allowed

Sadanand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue and 5 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2024A227/463/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 226 petition concerning expeditious disposal of a mutation case, the Court discharged the duty to examine merits but issued a direction to the respondent Naib Tehsildar to decide the underlying matter strictly according to law within three months after affording hearing opportunities.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to decide Case No.875 of 2012 expeditiously within three months.

Sadanand vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue and 5… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9764

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 463 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sadanand

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the privaterespondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

¶9

By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Case No.875 of 2012 (Suryakala vs. Ramlal) filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 pending before the respondent No.2.

¶10

It is stated that the mutation proceedings, being summary in nature, ought to have been decided expeditiously, however, in the instant case, the proceedings for mutation are pending since 2012. In these circumstances, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. The prayer is to expedite the proceedings of pending case.

¶11

Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2-Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil-Masaudha, District-Ayodhya (Faizabad) to consider and decide Case No.875 of 2012 (Suryakala vs. Ramlal), most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting any adjournment to either party preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the case, if possible and if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶13

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.2.2024 Vinay/-

¶16

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

Sadanand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue and 5 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

Smt.Prabhawati Shahi Vs Tehsildar Tehsil Balrampur Dist. Balrampur and 2 Others

Shyama Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Abdul Jabbar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 11 Others

Bramha Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Smt. Guddi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Mohammad Sabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Sub Divisional Magistrate Judicial Dist. Sultanpur and 7 Others