Disposed¶14

Smt. Manjoo v. Tehsildar Milkipur, Tehsil Milkipur, Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025A227/571/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 expedite petition, Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench, Jaspreet Singh J., disposed 7.2.2025; Smt. Manjoo v. Tehsildar Milkipur (Ayodhya) and others; expedited final disposal of Case No.7689 of 2021 / T202104230407689 under Section 34 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before Tehsildar; undertaking by petitioner against adjournments; no examination of merits; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:7964; counsel Ajay Kumar Pandey (petitioner), C.S.C. (respondents).

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to finally decide Case No.7689 of 2021 (Computerized Case no.T202104230407689, Section 34, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) as expeditiously as possible with full opportunity of hearing and no unnecessary adjournments, conditional on the petitioner furnishing the undertaking along with a copy of the order. ¶14

Smt. Manjoo Vs Tehsildar Milkipur, Tehsil… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 (Tehsildar, Milkipur) should be directed to consider and finally decide the pending Case No.7689 of 2021 (Section 34, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) expeditiously.

¶8

Court's answer

The Court directed respondent No.1 to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings of Case No.7689 of 2021; Computerized Case no.T202104230407689 (Section 34, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) as expeditiously as possible, holding that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The expedited decision was to afford full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶11

Key takeaways

The petitioner was required to furnish an undertaking (offered in para 10: no unnecessary adjournments and cooperation in early disposal) along with a copy of the order; failing which she would not be entitled to the benefit of the order.ratio¶12
Clarification that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the authority concerned remains free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Jaspreet Singh, J.; Order Date 7.2.2025; Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:7964) disposed of a Matters Under Article 227 petition (No. 571 of 2025) filed by Smt. Manjoo seeking expeditious disposal of Case No.7689 of 2021 (Computerized Case no.T202104230407689), a Section 34, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 matter pending before the Tehsildar, Milkipur (respondent No.1). Notice to private-respondent Nos.2 and 3 was dispensed with. The Court directed respondent No.1 to consider and finally decide the pending case as expeditiously as possible, affording full opportunity of hearing but without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, standing counsel having raised no objection. The petitioner undertook not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate; she was required to furnish this undertaking with a copy of the order, failing which the benefit of the order would be lost. The Court expressly did not examine the merits, leaving the authority free to decide strictly in accordance with law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7964

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 571 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Manjoo Respondent :- Tehsildar Milkipur, Tehsil Milkipur, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the Case No.7689 of 2021; Computerized Case no.T202104230407689 filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No.1.

¶9

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

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that the petitioner will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall also cooperate in the early disposal of the aforesaid case.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.1 to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings of Case No.7689 of 2021; Computerized Case no.T202104230407689 filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as expeditiously as possible, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶12

The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking, as mentioned above, along with a copy of this order. In case, if the petitioner does not furnish the aforesaid undertaking, then the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶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, the petition is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Harshita

¶16

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

Smt. Manjoo v. Tehsildar Milkipur, Tehsil Milkipur, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manjoo v. Tehsildar Milkipur, Tehsil Milkipur, Ayodhya 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

Kailash Nath Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shravasti and Others

Smt. Sita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Shahana Khatoon Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman and Others

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow Thru Its Manager vs Shanti Devi and Ors.

Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Siya Ram Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko and 4 Others