Surajbali vs Upper Ayukat (Prashashan) Prayagraj Mundal and 6 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33808

Court No. - 37

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5154 of 2025

Petitioner :- Surajbali Respondent :- Upper Ayukat (Prashashan) Prayagraj Mundal And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Azad Rai,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶7

Notice on behalf of Gram Sabha respondent no.2 is accepted by Sri Azaj Rai, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha.

¶8

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

¶9

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to decide the appeal beairng No. 310 of 2023, Computerized case No. C202302000000310, pending before him within a stipulated period as directed by this Court."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid appeal beairng No. 310 of 2023, Computerized case No. C20232000000310 (Shiv Ratan vs. Surajbali and others) is pending for disposal since 2023 and no final order has been passed in the said appeal.

¶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 stipulated 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

¶15

expeditious disposal of the case within stipulated period as to be fixed by this Court.

¶16

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent nos.3 to 6 are dispensed with.

¶17

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.

¶18

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the learned counsels present before the Court, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide the Appeal No. 310 of 2023, Computerized case No. C20232000000310, 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Jitendra

¶21

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surajbali v. Upper Ayukat (Prashashan) Prayagraj Mundal and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajbali v. Upper Ayukat (Prashashan) Prayagraj Mundal and 6 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hawelia Builders Pvt. Ltd. Gautam Budh Nagar Thru. Its Director vs Anupam Srivastava and Another

M/S M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory Syed Mohd. Qadar Ali vs Anju Verma Singh

Narendra vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Giraja Devi vs Upper Ayukat Nyayika Prayagraj Mandal Prayagraj and 8 Others

M/S Pan Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Thru. Authorized Representative, Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, Sitapur vs Mrs. Neela Chavhan

Bajrang vs Ayukut Prayagraj Mandal Prayagraj and 2 Others