Disposed

Kartik and Another v. State of U.P. and 17 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024WRIC/22981/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of a partition suit pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mau, under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Citing Rule 109(10) of the 2016 Rules requiring decision within six months or recorded reasons, the court directed disposal within one year.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SDM Sadar, Mau to decide Case No. 1351 of 2023 by reasoned speaking order on merits, expeditiously, preferably within one year.

Kartik and Another vs State of U.P. and 17 Others — Partition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125929

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22981 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Kartik And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 17 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mainuddin Ahamad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Mainuddin Ahamad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia , for the following relief:

¶9

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Mau (respondent no.2) to decide the Partition Suit No. 1351 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. T202315510101351), Kartik & another vs. Govind and others, under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulated period of time.

¶10

(ii) .....................

¶11

(iii) ...................."

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending for disposal since 2023 before the respondent No.2 but till date no final order

¶13

has been passed.

¶14

Sub Rule 10 of Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under:

¶15

"............(10). The Sub Divisional Officer shall make an endeavour to decide the suit within the period of six months and if the suit is not decided within such period, the reason shall be recorded."

¶16

There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within stipulated period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the case within stipulated period as to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent nos.3 to 18 is dispensed with.

¶19

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶20

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau (respondent No. 2), before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide the Case No. 1351 of 2023, Computerized Case No. T202315510101351, strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit after affording opportunity

¶21

of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to either of the parties.

¶22

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶23

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 Abhishek Gupta

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kartik and Another v. State of U.P. and 17 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik and Another v. State of U.P. and 17 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

Anand Kumar Pandey vs State of Up and 2 Others

Vimla Singh and Another vs Ram Lakhan and Others

Raunak Mishra vs Banaras Hindu University and 3 Others

Sneh Lata vs State of Up and 3 Others

Committee of Management Baba Narain Das Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Singh and Another vs State of Up and Another