Disposed¶19

Ram Nageena Sonkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2026A227/665/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Matters Under Article 227 No. 665 of 2026; disposed of on February 13, 2026 by Alok Mathur, J. Keywords: expeditious disposal; Revision No. 3499/2024; Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow; time-bound direction of one year; certified copy of order; in accordance with law; no legal impediment; parties to cooperate; unnecessary adjournments barred; notice to private respondents dispensed with; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 - Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow to consider and decide Revision No. 3499/2024 expeditiously, within one year from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. ¶19

Ram Nageena Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the State-respondents can be directed to decide Revision No. 3499/2024 pending before respondent no. 2, Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, expeditiously.

¶11

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, without entering into the merits, respondent no. 2 - Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow is directed to consider and decide Revision No. 3499/2024 expeditiously, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The parties to the case shall cooperate in expeditious disposal and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; the Court concerned shall not grant such adjournment except in exceptional circumstances.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matters Under Article 227 No. 665 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Alok Mathur, J., February 13, 2026 - Ram Nageena Sonkar v. State of U.P. thru Addl. Chief Secretary (Revenue) and others. The petitioner sought a direction to the State-respondents to decide Revision No. 3499/2024 pending before respondent no. 2, Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, expeditiously, the matter being listed but undecided. Requirement of notice to private respondents was dispensed with. Without entering into the merits, the Court directed respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the revision within one year from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment, and further directed the parties to cooperate in expeditious disposal and not to seek unnecessary adjournments, which the Court concerned was not to grant except in exceptional circumstances. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 665 of 2026

Ram Nageena Sonkar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Chandra Shukla, Vishal Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying fora direction to the State-respondents to decide Revision No. 3499/2024, expeditiously.

¶12

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

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petition would be sufficiently met in respondent no. 2, 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, respondent no. 2 - Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow is directed to consider and decide Revision No. 3499/2024, expeditiously, say within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

A227 No. 665 of 2026

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶21

February 13, 2026

¶22

Ravi/

¶23

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

Ram Nageena Sonkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nageena Sonkar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, 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

Similar cases

Taj Mohammad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Ram Bahadur Singh and 2 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer, Pratapgarh and Others

Anant Ram Mishra vs Deepak Mishra and Others

Santosh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Smt. Pushpa Devi vs Additional Commissioner Administration- Ii, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Ram Bhajan Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others