Disposed

Ramdev Thru. Power of Attorney Ankur Kumar Yadav v. Board of Revenue, Thru. Chairman, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC14 May 2025A227/2834/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 seeking direction to the Board of Revenue to decide a pending revision. Court disposed of the petition by directing the authority to decide the revision within 6 months from the next date, clarifying that no merits were examined.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Authority concerned to decide the pending revision within 6 months from the next date fixed in the matter, avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

Ramdev Thru. Power of Attorney Ankur Kumar Yadav Vs Board… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28038

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2834 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramdev Thru. Power Of Attorney Ankur Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, Thru. Chairman, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Verma,Kuldeep Kumar Srivastava,Mangal Sen Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

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

¶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. Issue an order or direction to Learned Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow i.e. opposite party no.1 to decide and conclude the Revision No. 3080 of 2024, Computerized Case No.R20240468003080 "Smt. Sehnaz Vs. Ramdev and others" under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, contained as Annexure No.2 to this petition, pending since 26.09.2024, pending before opposite party no.1, within a stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."

¶9

It is stated that as per Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 made under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with para 458(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, an appeal or revision should preferably be decided within a period of six months. However, in the instant case, the revision is pending since September 2024 and on account of pendency of the same, the petitioner, is suffering great hardship and mental agony. Prayer is to direct the authority concerned to decide the case within stipulated time.

¶10

It is further submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided.

¶11

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

¶12

In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the Authority concerned to decide the pending revision within 6 months from the next date fixed in the matter, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation. For conducting the proceedings in the time specified, unnecessary adjournments be avoided.

¶13

It is made clear that the 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.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Jyoti/-

¶16

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

Ramdev Thru. Power of Attorney Ankur Kumar Yadav v. Board of Revenue, Thru. Chairman, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdev Thru. Power of Attorney Ankur Kumar Yadav v. Board of Revenue, Thru. Chairman, Lucknow 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

Ram Shanker Vs Board of Revenue Lko. and Ors.

Sadashiv and Another Vs Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Umang Pathak Vs Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Sadar, Faizabad Now Ayodhya and Another

Irshad Educational and Welfare Society, Barabanki Thru. Manager, Parvej Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate / Collector, Barabanki and Others

Gafoor Ali Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and 4 Others