Dismissed¶13

Ram Singar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2025WRIC/6690/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue-record name-recording writ disposed by withdrawal and dismissal as not pressed: gata No.132 Min. (area 0-11-0), Village Naurhanirampur, Pargana Bidhar, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar; suit under Section 229 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act allowed 18.10.1995 by SDM Tanda; subsequent case No.601/2009-10 dismissed for want of prosecution by SDO order dated 22.11.2023; liberty to seek recall within two weeks, to be decided expeditiously. Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40600.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not pressed; petitioner may move an application for recall of the order dated 22.11.2023, which, if filed within two weeks, shall be considered and decided expeditiously, or may file a fresh petition, if so advised. ¶13

Ram Singar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to record the petitioner's name as Bhumidhari in the revenue records for gata No.132 Min. (area 0-11-0), Village Naurhanirampur, in view of the order dated 22.11.2023 dismissing case No.601/2009-10 for want of prosecution.

¶8

Court's answer

If an application for recall is filed within two weeks, it shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Subject to the aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed as not pressed, following the petitioner's request to be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to move an application for recall or file a fresh petition, if so advised.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - C No. 6690 of 2025, Ram Singar v. State of U.P. and others — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 6), decided 16.7.2025 by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J. The petitioner, relying on a suit under Section 229 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act decided in his favour on 18.10.1995 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, sought a direction to record his name as Bhumidhari in respect of gata No.132 Min. (area 0-11-0), Village Naurhanirampur, Pargana Bidhar, in place of the existing Gaon Sabha entry. The learned Standing Counsel produced an order dated 22.11.2023 (case No.601/2009-10, computerized case No.T201604040303943) whereby the Sub Divisional Officer (Tehsil Level), Judicial, Tanda had dismissed the matter for want of prosecution; the petitioner pleaded unawareness of those proceedings. On his request, the petition was permitted to be withdrawn and was dismissed as not pressed, with the observation that a recall application filed within two weeks would be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40600

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6690 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Singar

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Meva Lal Yadav,Harshita Gupta,Saddam Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri M. L. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel on behalfof the respondents.

¶8

It has been submitted that a suit under Section 229 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by the petitioner seeking declaration with regard to gata No.132 Min. area 0-11-0, situated in Village Naurhanirampur, Pargana Bidhar, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar with prayer to change the entry existing in the name Gaon Sabha and to record name of the petitioner. Admittedly for the said land suit proceedings was allowed on 18.10.1995 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar and it is in aforesaid circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to record name of the petitioner as Bhumidhari land in the revenue records.

¶9

Learned Standing counsel, on the basis of the instructions received from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar has produced before this Court an order dated 22.11.2023 where in case No.601/2009-10, computerized case No.T201604040303943 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Tehsil Level), Judicial, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not aware of the said proceedings and consequently could not know the said order.

¶11

After arguing the matter at some length learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate authority by moving application for recall or file a petition, if so advised.

¶12

In case application for recall is filed within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously

¶13

Subject to aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed as

¶14

not pressed.

¶15

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 16.7.2025 RKM.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Singar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and 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

Mansoor Husain and 4 Others Vs Deputy Director Consolidation, Lakhimpur Khiri and 8 Others

Karuna Shankar Shukla Vs Tahsildar, Tahsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Another

Indu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others

Akanksha Rawat vs Bhupendra Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Pratapgarh

Ram Singar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Ram Padarath Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 2 Others