Divya Kumar Walia v. Addil. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Division Ayodhya and 14 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024A227/599/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 writ petition challenging pendency of a land revenue revision, the single-judge bench dispensed with notice and disposed of the petition. The Court directed the Additional Commissioner Judicial to decide the pending revision within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Additional Commissioner Judicial to decide the pending revision expeditiously within six months.

Divya Kumar Walia vs Addil. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11549

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 599 of 2024 Petitioner :- Divya Kumar Walia Respondent :- Addil. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Division Ayodhya And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

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

¶7

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶8

"a. Direct the opposite party no.1 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to decide the Revision No.2535/2018, Computerized Case No.C-201804000002535, Rameshwar and others V/s Divya Kumar and another, under section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, relating to Village-Bantera, Pargana-Bhitauli, Tehsil-Ramnagar, DistrictBarabanki, expeditiously within a period as fixed by this Hon'ble court, in the interest of justice."

¶9

It is stated that as per para 458(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual , an appeal or revision should preferably be decided within a period of six months. However, in the instant case, the revision is pending since October 2018 and on account of pendency of the same, the petitioner, is suffering great hardship and mental agony. In these circumstances, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. The prayer is to expedite the proceedings of pending case.

¶10

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

¶11

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.1 to consider and decide the Revision No.2535/2018, Computerized Case No.C-201804000002535 (Rameshwar and others V/s Divya Kumar and another), most expeditiously, as per law and without granting any adjournment to either party preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed in the case, if possible and if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶12

It is made clear that the 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.

¶13

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.2.2024

¶15

Jyoti/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Divya Kumar Walia v. Addil. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Division Ayodhya and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divya Kumar Walia v. Addil. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Division Ayodhya and 14 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

Matbunnisa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Ram Sudhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Munijar Jabbar Khan Vs Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Devipatan and Others

Kariya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. and 16 Others

Sri Prakash Tiwari Vs Tahsildar Tahsil- Tulsipur Distt. Balrampur and Another

Ram Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 7 Others