Disposed¶10

Ram Karan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2025A227/2835/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 2835 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Saurabh Lavania J.; Ram Karan Singh v. State of U.P.; consolidation proceedings; Case No. 1864/133; Amar Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P.; Consolidation Officer Pratapgarh Vinay Kumar Srivastava; time-bound disposal; expedite pending case; three-month direction; full opportunity of hearing; no unnecessary adjournments; merits not examined; disposed of 16.5.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:29032.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide Case No. 1864/133 (Amar Bahadur Singh Versus State of U.P.) most expeditiously, with full opportunity of hearing and without unnecessary adjournments, preferably within three months, without examination of merits. ¶10

Ram Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct opposite party no. 2 / respondent No.2 to accord permission/approval for early disposal of pending Case No. 1864/133 (Amar Bahadur Singh Versus State of U.P.), enabling the petitioner timely justice.

¶8

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case in issue most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, preferably within a period of three months.

¶10

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not examine the case of either party on merits; the Authority concerned remains free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Saurabh Lavania, J.; Order dated 16.5.2025) disposed of an Article 227 petition by Ram Karan Singh seeking expedition of pending consolidation proceedings, Case No. 1864/133 (Amar Bahadur Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another), pending before opposite party no. 2. In compliance of an earlier order, Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Consolidation Officer, Pratapgarh, appeared and undertook to conclude the proceedings within three months. Relying on that statement, the Court directed respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties and without granting unnecessary adjournments, preferably within three months, while expressly clarifying that it had not examined the merits and the Authority remains free to decide strictly in accordance with law. Notice to private respondents was dispensed with.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29032

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2835 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Karan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bisunbablu Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-

¶8

"Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 2 to accord permission /approval for disposal of Case No. 1864/133 (Amar Bahadur Singh and another Versus State of U.P. and another) at an early date or as per order of this Hon'ble court, within a stipulated period, which this Hon'ble court thinks fit and proper, enabling the petitioner to get justice during his life time, to secure the ends of justice."

¶9

In compliance of earlier order of this Court, Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Consolidation Officer, Pratapgarh, is present before this Court. He submitted that proceedings of the pending case in issue i.e. Case No. 1864/133 (Amar Bahadur Singh Versus State of U.P.), would be concluded within a period of three months from today.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid statement of Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Consolidation Officer, Pratapgarh, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case in issue, detailed above, most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶11

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.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Jyoti/-

¶14

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

Ram Karan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Karan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and 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

Ram Yash and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Dewanand Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Dayanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Anand Pratap Singh Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Haidergarh, Barabanki and Another

Vijay Lal Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Smt. Ram Rati Devi Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Bahraich and Ors.