Partly allowed

Ramkala v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2025/343/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter under Article 227, the court held that a petition seeking directions for expeditious hearing of a pending revenue case was not maintainable as statutory remedy existed. The petitioner was directed to file an application under Rule 494 of Chapter 50 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual before the Board of Revenue.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application for expeditious hearing under Rule 494 of Chapter 50 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual before Board of Revenue within one week.

Ramkala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4740

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 343 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramkala

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sayyed Farooq Ahmad,Afzal Ahmad,Saurabh Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶9

"i. Issue order or direction to the Respondent No.-2 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil- Rudauli, District-Ayodhya to decide the Case No.5178/2023, Computerized Case No.-T202304230705178 titled as "Ramkala Vs Jagroop and others" filed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously within stipulated time period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court after providing the opportunity of hearing to the all concerned parties."

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid case is pending before the respondent no.2.

¶11

Hence this petition.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has raised an objection as to the maintainability of the petition and has referred to the amendment carried in the U. P. Revenue Court Manual where Chapter 50 has been introduced and in Rule 494, it has been provided that the Board of Revenue on an application duly supported by an affidavit can direct the expeditious hearing of any Suit, Appeal, Revision or other proceedings that is pending before the Court subordinate to it.

¶13

The respondent no.2 acts as a revenue courts subordinate to the Board of Revenue and therefore, it would be appropriate that this Court direct the petitioner to approach the Board of Revenue as statutory remedy is available under paragraph 494 of Chapter 50 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

¶14

This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an application for expeditious hearing under Rule 494 of

¶15

Chapter 50 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, within one week from today, before the Board of Revenue alongwith the affidavit complete in all respect. The Board of Revenue shall consider the prayer of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter.

¶16

Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Harshita

¶17

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

Ramkala v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkala v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 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

Vikram Singh and 3 Others Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Judicial, Tehsil Corlenganj, Gonda and Others

Fool Mohd. Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Aalapur Distt. Ambedkar Nagar

Rangee Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Chhatthoo Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Krishan Devi Vs D.D.C.and Ors.

Shiv Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. through District Magistrate Gonda, and 8 Others