Disposed

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

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2025A227/592/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 sought expeditious disposal of a revision pending since 2011 before the Board of Revenue, where respondents in the revision had not been served despite repeated orders. The Court declined to entertain the petition, leaving the petitioner free to move the Board of Revenue for appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; petitioner permitted to approach the Board of Revenue for appropriate orders on delay and service.

Shahana Khatoon Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7600

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 592 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Shahana Khatoon Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the revision pending before the Board of Revenue since, 2011.

¶8

It is urged that though the Board of Revenue has passed several orders directing the revisionist before the Board of Revenue to take steps but the same has not been done and in this regard the matter is engaging the attention which is causing hardship to the present petitioner who is respondent in the revision and for the said reason he seeks an expeditious disposal of the revision.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as from a perusal of the extracts of the order sheet, it appears that notices were issued to the respondent in the revision and even as late as on 26.11.2018, service on respondents in the Revision no.9, 14, 15, 18, and 19 has yet not been served.

¶10

Seven days time was granted to the revisionist to take fresh steps at the correct address however, there does not appear to be any order indicating whether any compliance has been made or not.

¶11

It is in this context the counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisionist who is respondent herein is misusing the liberty.

¶12

Be that as it may, this Court in the aforesaid circumstances, at this stage, is not inclined to entertain the petition leaving it open for the petitioner to bring the aforesaid situation to the notice of the Board of Revenue and in case if such an application is moved by the present petitioner the Board of Revenue is required to take note of it and pass an appropriate orders to

¶13

ensure that its orders are properly adhered to private parties and none of the parties should misuse the liberty.

¶14

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶15

It is made clear that, in case, if any cause for expedition arises in future, the instant order may not come in the way of the petitioner.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Harshita

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahana Khatoon v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman 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

Shyam Sunder Pandey Vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Vanshraj Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Mohammad Abid Khan Vs Consolidation Officer, Deehi, Pargana Parsadepur, Tehsil Salon, Raibareli and 4 Others

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

Raj Dev @ Patel Rajdev Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others