Dismissed

Lalmati v. Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC30 Apr 2025A227/2469/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction for expeditious decision of a partition suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer since September 2022. The Court dismissed the petition but directed the authority to decide the case preferably within six months without unnecessary adjournments, without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to decide Case No. T202304230300145 expeditiously, preferably within six months, without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Lalmati Vs Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Tehsil Bikapur… — Partition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24652

¶2

Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2469 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lalmati Respondent :- Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Niyaj Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yogesh Awasthi, learned State Counsel and perused the records.

¶5

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent(s) is dispensed with.

¶6

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶7

"(i) issue a direction to the opposite party No. 1 i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Judicial), Tehsil Bikapur, District- Ayodhya to decide the pending case No. T202304230300145 under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 "Lalmati Versus Ashwini Kumar & others", since 13.9.2022, expeditiously within stipulated period as early as possible."

¶8

It is stated that as per Rule 109(10) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 , a suit for partition should be decided preferably within a period of six months, however, in the instant case, the case is pending since September 2022 and on account of pendency of the aforesaid case, petitioner is suffering great hardship. In these circumstances, indulgence of this Court is required. Prayer is to direct the respondent no.1/Sub-Divisional Officer (Judicial), Tehsil Bikapur, District- Ayodhya, to consider and decide the proceedings expeditiously.

¶9

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending. It is accordingly dismissed with direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Case No. T202304230300145 (Lalmati Versus Ashwini Kumar & others) most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed before it, if possible and if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶11

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

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Jyoti/-

¶14

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

Lalmati v. Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalmati v. Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya and 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

Devki Nandan Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Gonda and 4 Others

Devendra Nath Singh Vs Board of Revenue,U.P., Lucknow Thru.Chairman,Revenue and 4 Others

Saroj Kant Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lko. and Others

Vidyadhar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Om Kar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Ravi Shankar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Assistant Record Officer, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Another