Disposed

Dayawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2024WRIC/5289/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged orders dismissing her previous petition. The Court did not adjudicate on merits but disposed of the writ petition without prejudice, directing the petitioner to approach the concerned authority by arraying the necessary party with a Section 5 application.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to approach the concerned authority by arraying the necessary party with a Section 5 application within two weeks.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46195

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5289 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dayawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 6 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Yadav,Amit Yadav,Manjari Singh,Rupendra Kumar Yadav,Saurabh Yadav,Vikrant Prakash,Yogendra Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶7

Heard Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.4 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 passed by respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil-Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow in Case No.02650/2021, computerized case no.T202110460302650 (Dayawati vs. Harihar Baksha Singh) under Section 35 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as order dated 21.12.2020 passed by respondent no.3-Naib Tehsildar, Nigoha, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow in Case No.RST/7587/2014, computerized case no.T20141046037587 (Dayawanti vs. Harihar Baksha Singh), under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the petitioner has filed a suit/Case No.RST/7587/2024 before the respondent no.3, who dismissed the same vide order dated 21.12.2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the respondent no.2 that too was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2024 on the ground of not arraying the necessary party and also directed the petitioner to approach the authority concerned in accordance with law.

¶10

During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready to approach the authority concerned by arraying the necessary party, hence, a direction may be issued in this regard.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 as well as learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions advance

¶12

by learned counsel for the petitioner and have submitted that the impugned order is just and proper and there is no illegality or infirmity in orders impugned, which requires any interference by this Court, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed off directing the petitioner to approach the authority concerned/respondent no.2 by arraying necessary party alongwith Section 5 application within two weeks from today, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 Ajeet

¶15

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

Dayawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 6 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

Mohd. Faheem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Haseen vs State of U.P. Thru. Civil Sectt. Home Deptt. and Another

Shyam Nath Pandey vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Anurag Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pawan Verma @ Arvind Kumar Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kamlesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Matsya Govt. Lko. and 3 Others