Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Sub Divisional Officer Tehsil Lalganj Distt. Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent while Sri Pankaj Gupta has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶12

In view of the proposed order, notice to the private respondents is dispensed with

¶13

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer has been made for expeditious disposal of mutation proceedings of case No.4960 of 2024 (computerized case No.T 202402570204960) titled as Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. Arun Kumar Singh and others under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code pending before respondent No. 1 i.e.Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶14

It is urged that though the matter is being listed but for one reason or the other, the aforesaid case is not being decided.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent No. 1, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶16

Considering the fact that the reference has been filed in 2024 of which proceedings are underway and from the perusal of the petition, there is no disclosure of any extra ordinary circumstance as to why this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to

¶17

A227 No. 6923 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

direct the trial court to decide the same expeditiously.

¶20

This Court is conscious of the fact that the trial court/competent authority are burdened to heavy dockets and in a routine manner directions cannot be passed to the trial court/competent authority to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously. It is when some extra ordinary circumstance is made out only then it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There also liberty should be given to the petitioner to place his grievances before the trial court/competent authority who after looking into the urgency as well as dockets situation and pass appropriate orders to expedite the aforesaid matter. In the present case no such circumstances has been mentioned or made out requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditiously disposal of the aforesaid case before the trial court/competent authority. In case, such application is moved within two weeks from today the trial court/competent authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say, within three weeks thereafter. In case, the trial court/competent authority is prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out it shall pass suitable order thereupon in accordance with law.

¶22

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and the Court/authority concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶23

With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of.

¶24

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶25

November 27, 2025

¶26

RKM.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Kumar Singh v. Sub Divisional Officer Tehsil Lalganj Distt. Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Singh v. Sub Divisional Officer Tehsil Lalganj Distt. Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shailesh Kumar vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and Others

Santosh Kumar and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others

Mahendra Kumar and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others

Nazaf Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Shree Narayan Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Sahaj Ram and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others