Ram Sajivan v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2025A227/6565/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 expedition petition disposed of; expeditious disposal of Section 24(4) U.P. Revenue Code 2006 appeal denied absent extraordinary circumstance; heavy dockets bar routine out-of-turn directions; liberty to file urgency application within two weeks, to be decided within three weeks thereafter; objection dated 18.07.2025; no examination on merits; Ayodhya Division.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without directing expeditious disposal; petitioner granted liberty to file an urgency application with the trial court/competent authority within two weeks, to be considered and decided expeditiously within three weeks thereafter, with suitable orders in accordance with law if urgency is prima facie made out. ¶¶23

Ram Sajivan Vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct respondent No. 1 to decide Appeal No. 1674/2025 and the petitioner's objection dated 18.07.2025 pending before him expeditiously.

¶¶13

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; the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 may be exercised only when some extraordinary circumstance is made out, failing which the petitioner should place grievances before the trial court/competent authority to weigh urgency against dockets.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

In the present case no extraordinary circumstance was mentioned or made out requiring interference of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; consequently no direction for expeditious disposal was issued.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Liberty is given to the petitioner to move an appropriate application detailing urgency before the trial court/competent authority; if such application is moved within two weeks, the authority shall consider and decide it expeditiously, say, within three weeks thereafter; and if prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out, it shall pass suitable orders in accordance with law.ratio¶¶21
The Court expressly did not examine the case of either party on merits; the Court/authority concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench, Court No. 5), Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J. (single judge), disposed of Matters Under Article 227 No. 6565 of 2025, decided November 11, 2025, filed by petitioner Ram Sajivan (counsel Suresh Kumar Yadav and Poonam) seeking expeditious disposal of Appeal No. 1674/2025 (Computer Case No. C202504000001674) (Kaushilya & others v. Ram Sajivan and others) under Section 24(4) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the petitioner's objection dated 18.07.2025 therein, pending before respondent No. 1, Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Division (State represented by C.S.C.). Holding that trial courts/competent authorities are burdened with heavy dockets and that expedition directions cannot be issued as a matter of routine, and observing that no extraordinary circumstance was disclosed in the writ petition although the claim petition of 2025 had proceedings underway, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary Article 227 jurisdiction. It instead granted liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application before the trial court/competent authority within two weeks, to be considered and decided expeditiously within three weeks thereafter, and to receive suitable orders in accordance with law where urgency was prima facie made out. The Court expressly stated it had not examined the merits and that the matter shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6565 of 2025

Ram Sajivan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Suresh Kumar Yadav, Poonam
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶12

In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is 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. 1674 / 2025 (Computer Case No. C202504000001674) (Kaushilya & others Vs. Ram Sajivan and others), U/S 24(4) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and objection dated 18.07.2025 filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid appeal, pending before respondent No. 1.

¶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 claim petition 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

¶18

A227 No. 6565 of 2025

¶19

¶20

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 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

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶25

November 11, 2025 Ravi/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Sajivan v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sajivan v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Division, 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

Sanjay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Pratapgarh and Others

Rajaram Vs the Learned Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Tiloi, Amethi and Another

Dayaram Vs Collector Thru. State of U.P., Ambedkar Nagar and Others

M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Thru. Addl. General Manager Finance Niraj Thaker vs Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lko.

Ram Sajivan vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Ram Kishore Vs Deputy Director Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others