Disposed

Dharamveer Yadav v. S.D.M.,Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and 6 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2025A227/2565/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 sought setting aside of an S.D.M.'s order in a revenue matter. The High Court, finding no findings on sufficient service or paragraph 492 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, declined to entertain it and disposed of it with liberty to file objections under Section 209(h) of the U.P. Revenue Code.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dharamveer Yadav Vs S.D.M.,Tehsil Sarojini Nagar… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25793

¶2

Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2565 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dharamveer Yadav Respondent :- S.D.M.,Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Razdan,Ankur Razdan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Sri Krishna Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Anurag Kumar Maurya, learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

"(i) To pass appropriate order or direction in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party no. 1 to 6 thereby setting aside the Order dated 23/4/2025, contained as Annexure No. 1, passed by the Court of S.D.M., Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow/opposite party no. 1 in Case No. 13180/2025 (Smt. Jaspreet Kaur v/s Dharamveer Yadav And Others)."

¶9

In view of the fact that there is no findings in the final order dated 21.03.2025 passed by opposite party no.1, favourable to the petitioner, with regard to sufficient service upon private opposite parties as also that language couched under paragraph 492 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. It is accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application in terms of paragraph 492 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual and plead its case by preferring an objection against application under Section 209(h) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 , which shall be consider and dispose of, on merits most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably within a period of two months from the next date fixed before it, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶10

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

¶11

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Jyoti/-

¶13

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

Dharamveer Yadav v. S.D.M.,Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dharamveer Yadav v. S.D.M.,Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhagirathi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Sogra Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Lko. and Another

Rose Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Sangram Verma Vs Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Distt. Ayodhya and Others

Makhauri Lal Dead Thru. Legal Heirs Kamla Devi Vs Deputy Director Consolidation, Gonda and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs Tahsildar (Judicial), Tahsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others