Disposed¶17

Vishvnath Shukla v. Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2026A227/418/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition, expeditious disposal, time-bound direction, six months deadline, certified copy of order, Consolidation Officer Milkipur Ayodhya, Case No. VAJ/238, Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P., Section 109 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, no unnecessary adjournment, cooperation of parties, notice to private respondent dispensed with, disposed of, Alok Mathur J., Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a time-bound direction: respondent No. 1, Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, District Ayodhya, to decide Case No. VAJ/238 - Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P., U/S 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, expeditiously, within six months from production of a certified copy of the order, without entering into the merits. ¶17

Vishvnath Shukla vs Consolidation Officer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No. 1, the Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, District Ayodhya, should be directed to consider and decide Case No. VAJ/238 - Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P. (under S.109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act) in a time-bound manner, as submitted on behalf of the petitioner.

¶13

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, respondent No. 1, the Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, District Ayodhya, is directed to decide Case No. VAJ/238 - Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P., U/S 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, provided there is no legal impediment.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The parties to the case shall cooperate in its expeditious disposal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments; nor shall the court below grant any such adjournment except in exceptional circumstances.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Alok Mathur, J., February 3, 2026: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 418 of 2026 (Vishvnath Shukla v. Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, Ayodhya and others) disposed of without entering into merits. Direction issued to respondent No. 1, the Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, District Ayodhya, to decide Case No. VAJ/238 - Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P., U/S 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, expeditiously, within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. Parties ordered to cooperate in expeditious disposal; unnecessary adjournments not to be sought or granted except in exceptional circumstances. Notice to private respondent dispensed with. Counsel: Ajay Kumar Pandey (petitioner); C.S.C. (State).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 418 of 2026

Vishvnath Shukla

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, Ayodhya And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ajay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 5

¶9

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, 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 respondent is dispensed with.

¶12

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 1 - Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, District - Ayodhya, to decide Case No. VAJ/238 - Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P., U/S 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, expeditiously.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 1 - Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, District - Ayodhya, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, respondent no. 1 - Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, District - Ayodhya, is directed to decide Case No. VAJ/238 - Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P., U/S 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, expeditiously, say within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

February 3, 2026

A. Verma

(Alok Mathur,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishvnath Shukla v. Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishvnath Shukla v. Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, Ayodhya 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

Similar cases

M/S Mahawar Marketings Private Limited Thru. Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Mahawar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. B.M. and others

Smt. Rajni Devi vs Dr. Anwar Ahmad Siddiqui

Saloni and 3 Others vs Upziladhikari, Tehsil Mishrikh, Sitapur and 4 Others

Munshi Rja @ Munshi Rja Khan vs Shakeel Ahmad and Another

Sajarunnisha and Another vs Addl. Commissioner Administration Second, Utraula, Division, Devi Patan, Balrampur and Ors.