Disposed¶16

Smt. Priti Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026WRIC/15386/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Writ - C No. 15386 of 2026; Manish Kumar Nigam, J.; decided April 23, 2026; mandamus for expeditious disposal of pending revenue case; Section 34 U.P. Revenue Code; Case No.3120 of 2026 / T202602030303120 (Priti Shukla vs. Anil Mishra); Nayab Tehsildar, Laltara, Mandal Prayagraj, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj; direction to decide within six months; delay in revenue proceedings; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 (Nayab Tehsildar, Laltara, Mandal Prayagraj) to consider and decide Case No.3120 of 2026 under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within six months from production of a certified copy of the order, subject to service, hearing and no legal impediment. ¶16

Smt. Priti Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 15386 of 2026

Smt. Priti Shukla

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhishek Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 36

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶12

The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief:

¶13

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus direct the respondent no.2 i.e. Nayab Tehsildar, Laltara, Mandal Prayagraj, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj to decide the Case No.3120 of 2026, Computer Case No.T202602030303120 (Smt. Priti Shukla Vs. Anil Mishra) under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code within stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶14

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that aforementioned case is pending consideration and the same has not been decided despite several dates have been fixed. He prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously.

¶15

In view of above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending.

¶16

Accordingly, 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 six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties, 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.

¶17

April 23, 2026 Nitika Sri.

¶18

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Priti Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Priti Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Satyendra Alias Satyendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others