Disposed¶16

Ramchander and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2025A227/689/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 689 of 2025, decided 12.2.2025 (Jaspreet Singh, J.): expeditious-disposal direction for pending Appeal No.273/2022 (C202204000000273) under S.331(3) U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 before respondent No.2; delay caused by Bar abstention resolutions; petitioner's undertaking against unnecessary adjournments made condition of benefit; petition disposed of without merit adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to decide pending Appeal No.273/2022 (Computerized Case No.C202204000000273) most expeditiously, with full opportunity of hearing and without unnecessary adjournments, conditioned on the petitioner furnishing the undertaking; notice to private respondents No.4 to 13 dispensed with. ¶16

Ramchander and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 should be directed to decide pending Appeal No.273/2022 (Computerized Case No.C202204000000273) under Section 331(3) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 expeditiously.

¶8

Court's answer

No gainful purpose in keeping the petition pending; ends of justice are served by directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide pending Appeal No.273/2022 (Computerized Case No.C202204000000273) most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking (no unnecessary adjournments; cooperation in early disposal) along with a copy of the order; if the petitioner does not furnish it, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of the order.

¶14

Key takeaways

The Court did not examine the case of either party on merits; respondent No.2 is to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Article 227 (MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 689 of 2025) by Ramchander and others before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Jaspreet Singh, J.), seeking expeditious disposal of Appeal No.273/2022, Computerized Case No.C202204000000273, under Section 331(3) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, pending before respondent No.2. Delay was attributed largely to resolutions of the Bar abstaining from judicial work. The Court disposed of the petition, directing respondent No.2 to decide the appeal most expeditiously with full opportunity of hearing but without unnecessary adjournments to either party; the petitioner was to furnish an undertaking to cooperate in early disposal, failing which the benefit of the order would be lost. The Court expressly refrained from examining the merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8914

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 689 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramchander And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 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-respondents No.4 to 13 is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Appeal No.273/2022, Computerized Case No.C202204000000273, under Section 331(3) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 pending before the respondent No.2.

¶9

It is submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided.

¶10

Learned standing counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the extract of the order-sheet and has pointed out that in majority of the dates, the proceedings before the respondent No.2 could not advance on account of the resolution passed by the Members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.2 to consider and decide the pending Appeal No.273/2022, Computerized Case No.C202204000000273 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably as

¶13

expeditiously as possible.

¶14

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.

¶15

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.2 shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Rakesh/-

¶18

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

Ramchander and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchander and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, 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

Ram Pal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Ohers

Israr Ahmad Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Alapur, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Ram Charan Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Gulam Mohammad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Dalbir Singh Vs the Court of Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Colonelganj, Gonda and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs Deputy Director Consolidation Hardoi and 6 Others