Disposed¶19

Mahesh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2025WRIC/30370/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Section 24 demarcation proceedings deferred; Section 209 (h) restoration application pending; SDO Tamkuhi Raj, Kushinagar; certiorari and mandamus prayers; admission-stage disposal without counter affidavit; direction to decide restoration application within one month of certified copy; no merits adjudication; Allahabad High Court; Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal; September 2025; WRIT - C No. 30370 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Neither prayer (certiorari quashing nor mandamus compliance) was granted as such; the petition was disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to respondent no.4 to proceed with and decide the pending restoration application of private respondent nos. 5 and 6 within one month, without adjudicating the merits. ¶19

Mahesh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by respondent no.4 (Sub Divisional Officer, Tamkuhi Raj, Kushinagar) in Case No. RST/225 of 2023 under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 should be quashed by way of certiorari. +2 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending; accordingly the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage without calling for counter affidavit.

¶15

Key takeaways

A direction was issued upon respondent No. 4 to proceed with the restoration application filed by private respondents and decide the same in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties.ratio¶15
The restoration application is to be decided preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.ratio¶15
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ-C No. 30370 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J., decided September 9, 2025): Petitioner Mahesh prayed for (i) certiorari quashing the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tamkuhi Raj, Kushinagar (respondent no.4) in Case No. RST/225 of 2023 under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, by which his finalized demarcation proceedings were deferred following a restoration application under Section 209 (h) filed by private respondent nos. 5 and 6, and (ii) mandamus to respondent no.4 for compliance with the earlier order dated 05.01.2023 in the same Section 24 case. Without disputing the factual position, the Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, without calling for counter affidavit, directing respondent no.4 to proceed with the pending restoration application, hear all affected parties and decide it in accordance with law, preferably within one month from production of the certified copy. The Court expressly clarified that it did not adjudicate the case on merit.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 30370 of 2025

Mahesh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Sunil Kumar I .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 34

¶9

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶10

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers;

¶11

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 passed by respondent no.4, Sub Divisional Officer, Tamkuhi Raj, Kushinagar in Case No. RST/225 of 2023, computerized case no. T-202305440300225 (Mahesh vs. Ganesh & others) under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure No.8 to this writ petition).

¶12

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.4 for the compliance of order dated 05.01.2023 in Case No. 225 of 2023, computerized case no. T-202305440300225 (Mahesh vs. Ganesh & others) under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006."

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that proceedings for demarcation under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were finalized, against which private respondent nos. 5 and 6 had moved a restoration application under Section 209 (h) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is pending consideration. According to petitioner's counsel by the order impugned dated 9.8.2024 the said proceedings have been deferred.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for private respondents does not dispute the said fact and submits that restoration application filed by private respondents may be decided expeditiously.

¶15

As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending or issuing notice to the private respondents, the writ petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage, without calling for counter affidavit, with a direction upon respondent No. 4 to proceed with the restoration application filed by private respondents and decide the same, in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this

¶16

WRIC No. 30370 of 2025

¶17

¶18

order.

¶19