Disposed¶23

Ram Singh v. Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2026A227/503/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 expeditious disposal stay application Appeal No. 3549 of 2025 Section 207 U.P. Revenue Code Additional Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya Ram Singh extraordinary circumstance heavy dockets out-of-turn liberty urgency application two weeks three weeks Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench Alok Mathur February 5, 2026 disposed

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application detailing urgency before the trial court/competent authority within two weeks, to be considered and decided expeditiously within three weeks thereafter; no direction for out-of-turn disposal issued and merits left unexamined. ¶23

Ram Singh vs Additional Commissioner Judicial… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should direct expeditious disposal of the stay application pending in Appeal No. 3549 of 2025 (under Section 207, U.P. Revenue Code) before respondent No. 1, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Liberty is given to the petitioner to move an appropriate application detailing urgency before the trial court/competent authority; if such application is moved within two weeks, the authority shall consider and decide it expeditiously, say within three weeks thereafter, and if prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out shall pass suitable orders in accordance with law.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

In a routine manner directions cannot be passed to the trial court/competent authority to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously; only when some extraordinary circumstance is made out is it appropriate to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227.

¶17

Key takeaways

In the present case no circumstances were mentioned or made out requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶20
This Court has not examined the case of either party on merits; the Court/authority concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Art. 227 - Expeditious disposal - Petition by Ram Singh seeking direction to Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya (respondent No. 1) to decide stay application in Appeal No. 3549 of 2025 under Section 207, U.P. Revenue Code - Application filed in 2025, proceedings underway - No extraordinary circumstance disclosed - Trial courts burdened with heavy dockets; out-of-turn directions not permissible in routine - Petition disposed of with liberty to move urgency application before the competent authority within two weeks, to be considered and decided expeditiously within three weeks thereafter - Merits not examined.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 503 of 2026

Ram Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Saloni	Nishad,	Pushkar	Dixit,	Vikas
	Chatur	vedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.,	Mohan Sin	gh

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent while notice on behalf of respondent No.4 has been accepted by Sri Mohan Singh.

¶12

In view of the proposed order, notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

¶13

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer has been made for expeditious disposal of stay application pending in appeal No.3549 of 2025 under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code pending before respondent No. 1 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Considering the fact that the application has been filed in 2025 of which proceedings are underway and from the perusal of the petition, there is no disclosure of any extra ordinary circumstance as to why this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the trial court to decide the same expeditiously.

¶17

This Court is conscious of the fact that the trial court/competent authority are burdened to heavy dockets and in a routine manner directions cannot be passed to the trial court/competent authority to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously. It is when some extra ordinary circumstance is made out only then it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227

¶18

A227 No. 503 of 2026

¶19

¶20

of the Constitution of India. There also liberty should be given to the petitioner to place his grievances before the trial court/competent authority who after looking into the urgency as well as dockets situation and pass appropriate orders to expedite the aforesaid matter. In the present case no such circumstances has been mentioned or made out requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditiously disposal of the aforesaid case before the trial court/competent authority. In case, such application is moved within two weeks from today the trial court/competent authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say, within three weeks thereafter. In case, the trial court/competent authority is prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out it shall pass suitable order thereupon in accordance with law.

¶22

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and the Court/authority concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶23

With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of.

¶24

February 5, 2026 RKM.

¶25

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶26

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

Ram Singh v. Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Mandal, 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

Sundar @ Sundar Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and Others

Ruchi Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Ganesh Das vs Board of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Its Secy. and Others

Raj Pratap Pandey and 2 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and 6 Others

Uday Pratap and Another vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Sawayajpur, Hardoi

Vijay Pal vs Sanjay Kumar and Another