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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur (respondent No. 2) to decide Case No. 817 of 2025, Computerized Case No. T202514290500817 (Indrajeet Vs. Ramjeet and others) 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 six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, unless there is any legal impediment; further direction that no unnecessary adjournments will be granted to either of the parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct respondent no. 2 (SDM, Tehsil Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur) to expedite and decide the pending suit Case No. 817 of 2025 (Indrajeet Vs. Ramjeet and others, computerized case no. T202514290500817) under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 within a stipulated period.

Court's answer

Without adverting to the merits and with the consent of the parties, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur (respondent No. 2) to decide Case No. 817 of 2025, Computerized Case No. T202514290500817 (Indrajeet Vs. Ramjeet and others) 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 six months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, unless there is any legal impediment, and directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to either party.

Ratio / Principle

The Court noted the legislative mandate under Sub Rule 10 of Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 that the Sub-Divisional Officer make an endeavour to decide the suit within six months and, if the suit is not decided within such period, record the reason; proceedings not concluded within the prescribed period accordingly require recorded reasons.

Key takeaways

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, notice need not be issued to respondents No. 4 to 6.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 37; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:32785), single bench of Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J. Writ-C No. 5861 of 2025: petitioner Narendra sought a mandamus to expedite the pending revenue suit Case No. 817 of 2025 (computerized case no. T202514290500817, Indrajeet Vs. Ramjeet and others) under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 before respondent no. 2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Jakhaniya, District Ghazipur. Relying on Sub Rule 10 of Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (six-month endeavour with reasons to be recorded for non-conclusion), and noting the learned Standing Counsel had no objection to a time-bound direction, the Court, without adverting to merits and with the consent of the parties (notice dispensed with for respondents 4 to 6), disposed of the writ petition by order dated 6.3.2025, directing the SDM to decide the suit strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order on merit after affording opportunity of hearing, expeditiously and preferably within six months of receipt of a certified copy of the order unless there is any legal impediment, and directing that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to either party.