Phulpati Devi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Phulpati Devi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent no.2, Consolidation Officer (Antim Abhilekh), Basti to decide the petitioner's recall application dated 24.08.2023 in Case No.32/71 (Ramroop Vs. Raj Kumari) in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should be issued to the Consolidation Officer (Antim Abhilekh), Basti to decide the petitioner's recall application along with substitution application dated 24.08.2023 filed in Case no. 32 of 1971 within a stipulated time.

Court's answer

Respondent no.2, Consolidation Officer (Antim Abhilekh), Basti is directed to decide the petitioner's recall application dated 24.08.2023, annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, in Case No.32/71 (Ramroop Vs. Raj Kumari) in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

Ratio / Principle

The decision on the recall application is to be made expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.) disposed of Writ-B No. 3129 of 2025 (Phulpati Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others) with a direction to respondent no.2, Consolidation Officer (Antim Abhilekh), Basti, to decide the petitioner's recall application dated 24.08.2023, annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, in Case No.32/71 (Ramroop Vs. Raj Kumari), in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The Court noted that the substitution application had already been decided by respondent no.2 vide order dated 25.09.2025 and expressly refrained from going into the merits of the case.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - B No. - 3129 of 2025

Phulpati Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashutosh Ojha,	Ram Mani Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 33

HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction that the recall application along with substitution application dated 24.08.2023 of petitioner filed in Case no. 32 of 1971 before Consolidation Officer (Antim Abhilekh), Basti be decided within a stipulated time.

Learned Standing Counsel has placed the instructions in pursuance to the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by this Court.

It is further informed that the application for substitution of the petitioner in the above said case has already been decided by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 25.09.2025.

Be that as it may, without going into merits of the case, the respondent no.2Consolidation Officer (Antim Abhilekh), Basti is directed to decide the recall application dated 24.08.2023 of the petitioner notably annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition in Case No.32/71 (Ramroop Vs. Raj Kumari) in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed off .

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)

October 29, 2025

Virendra

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad