Disposed¶21

Chandrakala v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and 5 Others

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2026A227/1275/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chandrakala v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya - MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 1275 of 2026 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Alok Mathur J., 20-03-2026): mandamus for time-bound disposal of pending Civil Revision No. 2357/2022 under S. 210 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; eight-month deadline from production of certified copy; no merits examined; notice to private respondents dispensed with; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 1, Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya, to decide Civil Revision No. 2357/2022 (Ramkumar Vs. Chandrakal and others) under Section 210, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously, within eight months from production of certified copy of the order, provided there is no legal impediment. ¶21

Chandrakala vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial)… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct respondent no. 1 to decide Civil Revision No. 2357/2022 (Ramkumar Vs. Chandrakal and others) under Section 210, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously.

¶12

Court's answer

Requirement of issuance of notice to the private respondents is dispensed with in view of the order proposed to be passed.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Without entering into the merits, respondent no. 1 - Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya is directed to decide Civil Revision No. 2357/2022, Computerized Case No. C202204000002357 (Ramkumar Vs. Chandrakal and others) under Section 210, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously.

¶16

Key takeaways

A time frame of eight months is fixed for deciding the revision.ratio¶16
The eight-month period runs from the date of production of certified copy of the order, and the revision is to be decided in accordance with law if there is no legal impediment.ratio¶19
Parties shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments; the court concerned shall not grant such adjournments except in exceptional circumstances.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Article 227 filed by Chandrakala seeking a direction to the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya to decide her pending Civil Revision No. 2357/2022 (Ramkumar v. Chandrakal and others) under Section 210, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Court, without entering into the merits, directed that the revision be decided expeditiously, within eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. Notice to private respondents was dispensed with, and the parties were directed to cooperate and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. Writ petition disposed of (Alok Mathur, J.; March 20, 2026).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1275 of 2026

Chandrakala

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And 5 Others

¶7

yoya n ers	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Awanish Kumar Upadhyay : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 5

¶9

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶11

In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondents are hereby dispensed with.

¶12

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to State-respondent to decide the Civil Revision in Revision No. 2357/2022 Computerized Case No. C202204000002357(Ramkumar Vs. Chandrakal and others) U/S 210 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously.

¶13

It is urged that though the matter is being listed but for one reason or the other, the aforesaid case is not being decided.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petition would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 1 considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits, respondent no. 1 - Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya is directed to decide Civil Revision in Revision No. 2357/2022 Computerized Case No. C202204000002357(Ramkumar Vs. Chandrakal and others) U/S 210 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously, say within a period of eight months

¶17

A227 No. 1275 of 2026

¶18

¶19

from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

¶20

It is further directed that the parties to the case shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Court concerned, except in exceptional circumstances.

¶21

With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

March 20, 2026

Ravi/

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandrakala v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakala v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and 5 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

Smt. Shyam Pati vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Milkipur, Ayodhya and Others

Rohit Memorial Institute of Education Saraswati Nagar Atara, Sultanpur Thru. Manager,Raman Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Khatoona vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Tarabganj, Gonda and Another

Smt. Shivratree vs Manju and 2 Others

Aruna Singh vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Tiloi, Amethi and Another

C/M Ram Narayan Shiksha Samiti Thru. Manager, Ajay Pratap Singh vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others