Disposed¶23

Anil Kumar Yadav and Others v. Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2025A227/6380/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; expeditious disposal; out-of-turn direction refused; heavy dockets; extraordinary circumstance requirement; Land Revenue Act Section 210; Appeal No. T 202504040404769; Sub Divisional Officer Tehsil Tanda Ambedkar Nagar; liberty to file urgency application; two weeks / three weeks timeline; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Court No. 5; Alok Mathur J.; Anil Kumar Yadav; Vivek Srivastava; Mohan Singh; October 31 2025; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with observations and directions; liberty granted to the petitioner to move an application detailing urgency for expeditious disposal before the trial court/competent authority, to be decided within the time frame indicated if moved within two weeks. ¶23

Anil Kumar Yadav and Others Vs Sub Divisional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct expeditious disposal of Appeal No. T 202504040404769 (Section 210, Land Revenue Act) pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶16

Court's answer

Trial courts/competent authorities are burdened with heavy dockets and, in a routine manner, directions cannot be passed to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously; only when some extraordinary circumstance is made out would it be appropriate to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

No extraordinary circumstance was mentioned or made out in the present case requiring interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; therefore no direction for expeditious disposal was issued.

¶20

Key takeaways

Liberty was given to the petitioner to move an appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditious disposal of the appeal before the trial court/competent authority; if such application is moved within two weeks it shall be considered and decided expeditiously, say, within three weeks thereafter, and upon prima facie satisfaction that a case of urgency is made out, suitable orders shall be passed in accordance with law.ratio¶21
The Court expressly clarified that it has not examined the case of either party on merits; the court/authority concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law (merits expressly left open).obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.), MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6380 of 2025, decided October 31, 2025: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India sought expeditious disposal of Appeal No. T 202504040404769 under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar. The Court held that, as subordinate courts and competent authorities are burdened with heavy dockets, directions for out-of-turn expeditious disposal cannot be passed in a routine manner; only an extraordinary circumstance justifies invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227. Since the appeal was filed in 2025, proceedings were underway, and no extraordinary circumstance was disclosed, no such direction was issued. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to move an appropriate application detailing urgency before the trial court/competent authority; if moved within two weeks, it was to be considered and decided expeditiously, say, within three weeks thereafter, with suitable orders in accordance with law upon prima facie satisfaction of urgency. The Court did not examine the case on merits. Petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6380 of 2025

¶3

Anil Kumar Yadav And Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Vivek Srivastava, Lalit Narayan Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Mohan Singh

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Vivek Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent, Sri Mohan Singh for opposite party No.4 and perused the record.

¶12

In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents are dispensed with.

¶13

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer has been made for expeditious disposal of Appeal No. T 202504040404769 under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act pending before Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶14

It is urged that though the matter is being listed but for one reason or the other, the aforesaid case is not being decided.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petition would be sufficiently met in case respondent No.1, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶16

Considering the fact that the appeal was filed in 2025 of which proceedings are underway and from the perusal of the writ petition, there is no disclosure of any extra ordinary circumstance as to why this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the trial court to decide the same expeditiously.

¶17

This Court is conscious of the fact that the trial court/competent authority are burdened to heavy dockets and in a routine manner directions cannot be passed to the trial court/competent authority to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously. It is when some extra ordinary circumstance is made out only then it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There also liberty should be given to the petitioner to

¶18

A227 No. 6380 of 2025

¶19

¶20

place his grievances before the trial court/competent authority who after looking into the urgency as well as dockets situation and pass appropriate orders to expedite the aforesaid matter. In the present case no such circumstances has been mentioned or made out requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditiously disposal of the aforesaid case before the trial court/competent authority. In case, such application is moved within two weeks from today the trial court/competent authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say, within three weeks thereafter. In case, the trial court/competent authority is prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out it shall pass suitable order thereupon in accordance with law.

¶22

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and the Court/authority concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶23

With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of.

¶24

October 31, 2025 RKM.

¶25

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Yadav and Others v. Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Yadav and Others v. Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar 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

Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lko. and Others

Vindeshwari Prasad and Another Vs Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda and Others

Sangam Lal and 2 Others Vs Addl. District Magistrate Judicial/ Deputy Director Consolidation, Amethi and 4 Others

Hari Prashad and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Ram Ashish and 3 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Others

Nilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others