Chhote Lal Urf Chhote vs Upper Ayukt (Nyayik) Prayagraj Mundal Prayagraj and 3 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114121

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22214 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Chhote Lal Urf Chhote

¶5

Respondent :- Upper Ayukt (Nyayik) Prayagraj Mundal Prayagraj And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Azad Rai,C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amresh Kumar Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents no.1 and perused the record.

¶8

The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:

¶9

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decide the appeal bearing Appeal No. 1249 of 2023, Computerized Case No. C202302000001249 (Bunda Devi vs. Chhotey and others), forthwith within a reasonable period."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appeal under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending for disposal since 2023 before the respondent no.1.

¶11

Sub Rule 4 of Rule 183 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under:

¶12

"The appellate or the revisional Court shall, endeavour to finally decide the appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded."

¶13

There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within the period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned case, within stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

¶15

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent nos.3 & 4 is dispensed with.

¶16

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶17

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, with a direction to the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj (respondent no.1), before whom the Appeal No. 1249 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. C202302000001249) is pending for disposal, to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to either of the parties and the adjournment, if prayed for, will be permissible to be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

¶18

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶19

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Abhishek Gupta

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chhote Lal Urf Chhote v. Upper Ayukt (Nyayik) Prayagraj Mundal Prayagraj and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhote Lal Urf Chhote v. Upper Ayukt (Nyayik) Prayagraj Mundal Prayagraj and 3 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

Similar cases

Nidhi Sonkar vs Vishal Anand Sonkar

Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative Ram Pravesh Tiwari vs Suman Dhama

Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative Ram Pravesh Tiwari vs Beena Devi and Another

Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others vs Shri Saurabh Singh Executive Engineer Nirman Khand, Lucknow and 3 Others

Shashank vs State of Up and 6 Others

Dilip Chaurasia Since (Deceased) and 5 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others