Krishna Pratap Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Krishna Pratap Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to opposite party No. 2 to proceed in Appeal No. 347/2024 strictly in accordance with the observations in Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and to conclude the proceedings most expeditiously, say within six months, if there is no other legal impediment; merits left undecided by this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether opposite party No. 2 must first hear and decide the issue of delay (limitation) and maintainability of Appeal No. 347/2024 before proceeding further with the appeal.

Court's answer

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to opposite party No. 2 to proceed in Appeal No. 347/2024 strictly in accordance with the observations made in this Court's judgment in Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (per which the issue of limitation is to be decided first), and to take every endeavour to conclude the proceedings most expeditiously, say within a period of six months, if there is no other legal impediment.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not examine the case of either party on merits; the Authority concerned remains free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Saurabh Lavania, J.) — WRIT-C No. 1687 of 2025, Krishna Pratap Singh and others v. State of U.P. through Collector, Ayodhya and others, decided 1.5.2025. Petitioners sought mandamus directing opposite party No. 2 (appellate authority) to first decide the delay and maintainability of Appeal No. 347/2024 (Computerized No. D202404230000347), Raj Pratap Singh and others v. Kailasha Devi and others — an appeal filed after a delay of about 32 years — before proceeding further. Taking note of the law, including this Court's judgment in Ram Prakash v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi (Writ Petition No. 6574 (Consolidation) of 2016), under which the issue of limitation should be decided first, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the authority to proceed strictly in accordance with the observations in that judgment and to conclude the proceedings most expeditiously, say within six months, if there is no other legal impediment. The Court clarified it had not examined either party's case on merits and the authority remained free to decide strictly in accordance with law.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25222

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1687 of 2025 Petitioner :- Krishna Pratap Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghaw Ram Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Srivastava,Mohan Singh,Ravi Singh Sisodiya

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.7 and perused the record.

The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party No. 2 to hear and decide the issue of delay and maintainability of the appeal first, and only thereafter proceed further in the appeal No.347/2024 (Computerized No. D202404230000347 (Raj Pratap Singh and others Versus Kailasha Devi & others)."

Taking note of the facts of the case including that the appeal No.347/2024 (computerized case No.D202404230000347 (Raj Pratap Singh and others Versus Kailasha Devi & others) was filed after delay of about 32 years and the law on the issue including the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi & others, Writ Petition No.6574 (Consolidation) of 2016, according to which the issue of limitation should be decided first, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party No.2 to proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with the observations made in the judgment Ram Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation (referred above) and may take every endeavour to conclude the proceedings most expeditiously, say within a period of six months, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

ML/-

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