Disposed¶12

Nahar Singh v. State of U.P. and 16 Others

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2025WRIC/30874/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus for time-bound disposal of revenue appeal; Section 207 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Appeal No. C20250100001944/2025; Additional Commissioner Agra Mandal Agra; expeditious disposal; two-month direction; admission-stage disposal without counter affidavit; no notice to private respondents; merits left unadjudicated; Allahabad High Court; Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.; September 8, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 (Additional Commissioner, Agra Mandal, Agra) to decide Appeal No. C20250100001944/2025 (Nahar Singh vs. Pratap Singh and others) in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. ¶12

Nahar Singh vs State of U.P. and 16 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondent no. 2 (Additional Commissioner, Agra Mandal, Agra) to decide Appeal No. C20250100001944/2025 (Nahar Singh Versus Pratap Singh and others) within a stipulated time.

¶9

Court's answer

The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, without calling for a counter affidavit or issuing notice to the private respondents, with a direction upon respondent no. 2 to decide Appeal No. C20250100001944/2025 (Nahar Singh vs. Pratap Singh and others) in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the matter on merits; the order was confined to a time-bound direction for disposal of the pending appeal.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 30874 of 2025) under Article 226 jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.; decided September 8, 2025) seeking mandamus for expeditious disposal of Appeal No. C20250100001944/2025 (Nahar Singh vs. Pratap Singh and others), an appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before respondent no. 2, the Additional Commissioner, Agra Mandal, Agra. Held: disposed of at the admission stage without counter affidavit or notice to private respondents; respondent no. 2 directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law after hearing all affected parties, preferably within two months of production of a certified copy of the order. The Court expressly did not adjudicate the matter on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 30874 of 2025

¶3

Nahar Singh

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 16 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mukesh Chandra Gupta, Shubham Prakash Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Avinash Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 34

¶7

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶8

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶9

"(1) Issue, a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/ commanding to the respondent no. 2 (Additional Commissioner Agra Mandal Agra) to decide the Appeal No. C20250100001944/2025 (Nahar Singh Versus Pratap Singh and others), within stipulated time granted by this Hon'ble Court."

¶10

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that appeal filed under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending consideration before respondent no. 2. The sole prayer made in the writ petition is for expeditious disposal of the same.

¶11

3. As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, the writ petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage, without calling for counter affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents, with a direction upon respondent no. 2 to decide the Appeal No. C20250100001944/2025 (Nahar Singh vs. Pratap Singh and others), in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

4. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶13

5. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits. September 8, 2025 V.S.Singh

¶14

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nahar Singh v. State of U.P. and 16 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nahar Singh v. State of U.P. and 16 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

Rakesh Yadav vs Pankaj Mohan and 2 Others

Mohan Lal vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Gorakh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Janardan Rai @ Janardan Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shakti Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Kumar vs Jagatpal and 12 Others