Disposed¶9

Parasnath Yadav v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2025WRIC/22380/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus writ for enforcement of a revenue demarcation order; Up-Ziladhikari, Salempur, Deoria; compliance sought through Revenue Authorities on the basis of revenue records; repeated petitioner applications unactioned, last dated 17.04.2025; disposal at admission stage without counter affidavit or notice to private respondents; one-month timeline from production of certified copy; no merits adjudicated; Allahabad High Court, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal J., order dated 15.7.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:114090.

What did the court decide?

Direction upon the authority concerned to ensure compliance of the order of demarcation strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ¶9

Parasnath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus should be issued directing respondent no. 3 (Up-Ziladhikari, Salempur, Deoria) to ensure compliance of the order of demarcation by having the Revenue Authorities carry out demarcation of the disputed land on the basis of revenue records, within a stipulated time.

¶7

Court's answer

The matter was disposed of at the admission stage, without calling for a counter affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents, with a direction upon the authority concerned to ensure compliance of the order of demarcation strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶9

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the case on merit; the merits of the demarcation dispute were left open.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.; Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:114090) disposed of WRIT - C No. 22380 of 2025 (Parasnath Yadav v. State of U.P. and 9 others) at the admission stage on 15.7.2025. The petitioner contended that although a demarcation order had been passed, it had not been complied with despite several applications, the last moved on 17.04.2025. Finding no useful purpose in keeping the matter pending, and declining to call for a counter affidavit or issue notice to the private respondents, the Court directed the authority concerned to ensure compliance of the order of demarcation strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within one month from production of a certified copy of the order. The Court expressly made clear that it had not adjudicated the case on merit.

Parasnath Yadav v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parasnath Yadav v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases