Disposed¶14

Sitara Singh v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026WRIC/15265/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 15265 of 2026, decided April 23, 2026 by Manish Kumar Nigam, J. Mandamus for expeditious disposal of restoration application u/s 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending since 2025 before SDO Baheri, Bareilly; petition disposed of with twelve-week direction; no opinion on merits; no costs or quantum.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 (Sub Divisional Officer, Baheri) to consider and decide the Restoration Application dated 03.11.2025 in Case No.13381/2025 in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks from production of a certified copy of the order, after ensuring service and opportunity of hearing, without unnecessary adjournments, provided there is no other legal impediment. ¶14

Sitara Singh Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding the Sub Divisional Officer, Baheri (Respondent No.2) to ensure hearing of, and decide, the Restoration Application dated 03.11.2025 in Case No.13381/2025 (Satnam Singh and others vs Sukkha Singh and others, u/s 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) within a time fixed by the Court.

¶11

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the aforementioned restoration application.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The application is to be decided in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks.

¶14

Key takeaways

The decision is to follow production of a certified copy of the order, after ensuring service upon all opposite parties and giving opportunity of hearing, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, provided there is no other legal impediment.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 15265 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) seeking mandamus to the Sub Divisional Officer, Baheri, District Bareilly to hear and decide a Restoration Application dated 03.11.2025 in Case No.13381/2025 (Satnam Singh and others vs Sukkha Singh and others) u/s 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending since 2025 with several dates fixed but undecided. Held: petition disposed of finally without expressing any opinion on merits; respondent No.2 directed to consider and decide the application in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks from production of a certified copy of the order, after ensuring service upon all opposite parties and opportunity of hearing, without granting unnecessary adjournments, provided there is no other legal impediment.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 15265 of 2026

Sitara Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Counsel for Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 12 Others	: Dhirendra Singh, Santosh Kumar .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Sher Bahadur Singh

¶7

Court No. - 36

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Sub Divisional Officer Baheri, Tehsil: Baheri, District: Bareilly (Respondent No.2) to ensure the hearing of Restoration Application dated 03.11.2025 in Case No.13381/2025 Computerized Case to No.T202512130513381 (earlier Case No.1257/2025 and 12573/2025) Satnam Singh and others Vs. Sukkha Singh and others u/s 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and decide the same within stipulated time which this Hon'ble Court may fixed."

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid restoration application 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.

¶13

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

¶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 application, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of a

¶15

WRIC No. 15265 of 2026

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

¶19

April 23, 2026 Ved Prakash

¶20

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

Sitara Singh v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitara Singh v. State of U.P. and 12 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

Gulam Mohammad and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Karim Vs D.D.C. and Others

Ravindra Patel vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Bachu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Binni vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Santosh Kumari Upadhyay Vs Up Ziladhikari Sadar and 3 Others