Disposed

Sayed Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 16 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024WRIC/24072/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction for expeditious disposal of a Section 229B UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act suit for declaration of bhumidari right pending since 2007 before the SDO, Prayagraj. The writ petition was disposed of directing decision within five months by reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SDO, Prayagraj to decide the Section 229B suit expeditiously, preferably within five months.

Sayed Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 16 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121123

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24072 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sayed Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 16 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Azad Rai,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

¶7

The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India beseeching expeditious disposal of Case No. 78/96/50/75/93/127/2007-2008 (Computer No. T20170203063810) (Sayied Ahmad Vs. State of UP and others) under Section 229B of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Prayagraj, District Prayagraj.

¶8

It is submitted that the petitioner has filed a declaratory suit for Bhumidari right under Section 229B of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which is pending consideration since 2007 despite the fact that the opposite party has already appeared and the case is ready for final adjudication.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in case a direction is issued for early disposal of the aforementioned matter.

¶10

In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case as mentioned in the present writ petition, with a direction to Sub-Divisional Officer, Prayagraj (respondent No. 2), before whom the aforementioned matter is pending disposal, to decide the same expeditiously, preferably, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶11

It is expected that it should be decided by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary

¶12

adjournments to either of the parties.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 vinay

¶15

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

Sayed Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 16 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 16 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

Similar cases

Pratiksha Vishwakarma vs Dr Arvind Kumar Pathak, District Basic Education Officer

Girdhari vs State of Up and 2 Others

Jaipal Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) and 4 Others

Harilal Yadav vs State of Up and 3 Others

Malkhan Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravindar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others