Disposed

Sandeep Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2025/88/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the pendency of a restoration application for over two years. The Court, relying on the Revenue Court Manual, directed the Additional Collector to decide the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) to decide the pending restoration application within three months.

Sandeep Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2129

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 88 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 8 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Gauri Shankar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Gauri Shankar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Upendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 & 2, Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and perused the record.

¶8

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

¶9

"(i) Issue an order or direction thereby directing the opposite party no.2 to decide the Restoration Application No.- D202310330003075 filed by Maina son of Parmeshwar, pending in Case No. D202210330001137 u/s 66 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Maina versus Baijulal and others) pending before the opposite party no.2 since 04.08.2022.

¶10

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

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, instituted by the petitioner were dismissed in default vide order dated 01.08.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved for restoration of the said proceeding by means of an application dated 04.08.2022 and since then the application is pending for disposal. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to pendency of the said application, the valuable rights of the petitioner are being adversely affected.

¶12

Para 479 of the Revenue Court Manual provides as under: "Reason for delay in disposal- If the period for concluding a proceeding has not been fixed in the Code or the Rules; the court shall endeavour to conclude the proceeding within a period of ninety days and if the proceeding is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded."

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent nos.4 to 9 is dispensed with.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), DistrictHardoi (respondent No.2), before whom the Case No. RST/3075/2023 (Computerized Case No. D202310330003075) is pending for disposal, to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months 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

¶18

parties, if prayed for, will be permissible to be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 13.1.2025 Abhishek Gupta

¶21

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

Sandeep Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 8 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

M/S Swastik Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Prabhat Ojha vs Ananya Pandey

Hawelia Builders Pvt. Ltd. Gautam Budh Nagar Thru. Its Director vs Anupam Srivastava and Another

Azad Ali and Others vs Suresh and Others

Naved and Others vs Board of Revenue Thru. President U.P. Lko. and Another

Ramdheeraj Thru. His Wife Renu Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and 18 Others

Prabhawati vs Ld. Court of Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya and Another