Disposed¶14

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2026WRIC/14592/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; expedition of pending revenue case; Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Case No. 10830 of 2025; Computerized Case no. T202515060210830; Arvind Kumar Yadav versus Ganv Sabha; three-month timeline; certified copy; WRIT - C No. 14592 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Manish Kumar Nigam, J.; April 20, 2026; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the pending Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code case (Case No. 10830 of 2025) in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from production of a certified copy of the order, after service and hearing, without unnecessary adjournments, subject to no legal impediment. ¶14

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 14592 of 2026

¶3

Arvind Kumar Yadav

¶4

	Versus	.....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 4 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ramesh Yadav	war Gaud, Rannoolal
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Shukla	Rameshwar Prasad

¶5

Court No. - 36

¶6

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶9

"To issue an order or direction in the Nature of MANDAMUS to the respondent no. 2 and 3, to expedite the Proceeding of Case No. 10830 of 2025, Computerized Case no. T202515060210830 (Arvind Kumar Yadav versus Ganv Sabha), Under Section 24 Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. During the pendency of the writ petition, within stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid case under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending since 2025. It is further contended that several dates have been fixed but the same has not been decided yet. He prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously.

¶11

No useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending.

¶12

WRIC No. 14592 of 2026

¶13

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned case, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment.

¶15

April 20, 2026 Ved Prakash

¶16

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Parashuram and Another vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Krishna Pyare and Another vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Jai Prabhat and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jamuna Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Chhotak @ Chhotkan @ Vishambhar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gangacharan Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others