Disposed¶17

Ram Manohar Singh v. Dy.Director Consolidation, Raibareli and Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2025A227/5402/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Alok Mathur, J.; Article 227 petition No. 5402 of 2025 decided 09.09.2025; expeditious-disposal/time-bound direction to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide interim relief application in consolidation revision (S.48, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act); six-week outer limit tied to service report; no adjudication on merits; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 1 (Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raebareli) to decide the interim relief application in Revision No. 229 of 2025 expeditiously, i.e. within six weeks from receipt of the service report regarding service of notice upon the opposite parties, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment; parties directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments. ¶17

Ram Manohar Singh Vs Dy.Director Consolidation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should direct respondent No. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raebareli, to decide the interim relief application filed in Revision No. 229 of 2025 (under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act) expeditiously.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, respondent No. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raebareli, is directed to decide the interim relief application filed in Revision No. 229 of 2025 expeditiously, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the service report regarding service of notice upon the opposite parties therein, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

Key takeaways

The parties to the case are directed to cooperate in expeditious disposal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments, nor shall such adjournments be granted by the Court concerned except in exceptional circumstances.ratio¶16
With the above observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 disposed of by directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raebareli, to decide, expeditiously and within six weeks from receipt of the service report of notice on the opposite parties, the interim relief application filed in Revision No. 229 of 2025 (Rammanohar Singh @ Durga Baks Singh v. Consolidation Committee, Hilalganj) under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act — direction issued without entering into the merits of the case and subject to there being no legal impediment; parties directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments except in exceptional circumstances.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5402 of 2025

Ram Manohar Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Dy.Director Consolidation, Raibareli And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brajendra Pratap Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Brejendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶12

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 1 - Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raibareli, to decide interim relief application filed in Revision No. 229 of 2025 - Rammanohar Singh @ Durga Baks Singh Vs. Consolidation Committee, Hilalganj, U/S 48 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, expeditiously.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 1 - Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raibareli, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, respondent no. 1 - Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raibareli, is directed to decide nterim relief application filed in Revision No. 229 of 2025 - Rammanohar Singh @ Durga Baks Singh Vs. Consolidation Committee, Hilalganj, U/S 48 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, expeditiously, say within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of service report regarding service of notice upon the opposite parties therein, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

It is further directed that the parties to the case shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Court concerned, except in exceptional circumstances.

¶17

With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶18

September 9, 2025 A. Verma

¶19

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Manohar Singh v. Dy.Director Consolidation, Raibareli and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Manohar Singh v. Dy.Director Consolidation, Raibareli 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 Prasad Vs Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj Mandal, Prayagraj and Others

Chandra Kali @ Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Revenue, Lko. and Others

Jameyat Islahul Muslmin (Kabristan) Kachnar, Tehsil, Sitapur Thru. Secretary, Shaukat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Ram Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Vivek Vs Nayab Tahsildar Jahangirganj, Tahsil Alapur, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Sanjay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others