Nagendra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nagendra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction (mandamus) to respondent no. 2, Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kasya, District Kushinagar, to decide Computer Case No. T201905440404257 (Vibhuti vs. Nagendra) under Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously in accordance with law, after hearing the parties and affording opportunity to lead evidence, without unnecessary adjournments, subject to there being no other legal impediment.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondent no. 2, Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kasya, District Kushinagar, to decide Computer Case No. T201905440404257 (Vibhuti vs. Nagendra) under Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a stipulated time fixed by the Court.

Court's answer

In view of the provisions of Sub Rule (10) of Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2016, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and decide the pending proceeding under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in accordance with law, expeditiously, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and opportunity to lead evidence, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, provided there is no other legal impediment, keeping in view the mandate of Sub Rule (10) of Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2016.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to respondent no. 2, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kasya, District Kushinagar, to decide Computer Case No. T201905440404257 (Vibhuti vs. Nagendra) under Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending since 2019. Relying on Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which requires the Sub-Divisional Officer to endeavour to decide the suit within six months and record reasons if not, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending and directed the SDO to decide the proceeding expeditiously, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and opportunity to lead evidence, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, provided there is no other legal impediment.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 18036 of 2026

Nagendra

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

		....	.Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Munna	Tiwari, Sandeep	Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.,	Sudhir Bharti

Court No. - 36

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

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

The writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :-

"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus direct the respondent no.2 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kasya, District Kushinagar to decide the Computer Case No.T201905440404257 (Vibhuti Vs. Nagendra), under Section 116 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 116 of U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 are pending since 2019. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that appropriate directions be issued to respondent no. 2 to decide the same within a stipulated time or in a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner brought attention of the Court to Sub Rule (10) of Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016,

" Rule 109. Preliminary and Final decrees (Section 117) , is quoted as under:

(10) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall make an endeavour to decide the suit within the period of six months and if the suit is not decided within such period, the reason shall be

WRIC No. 18036 of 2026

2

recorded."

In view of the provisions as contemplated in Sub Rule (10) of Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2016, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending.

The respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid pending proceeding under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before him, in accordance with law, expeditiously, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as well as opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment, keeping in view of the mandate of Sub Rule (10) of Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2016, quoted above.

With these observation, this petition is disposed of.

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

May 7, 2026 Ved Prakash

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