Disposed¶22

Meera Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2026WRIC/538/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (Writ-C No. 538 of 2026) by Meera Devi against State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Gonda and others concerning dismissal for non-prosecution of her case under Section 24, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the SDM, Tarabganj (Gonda) despite the order being reserved on 11.03.2025 and without notice to parties; Alok Mathur, J. (Lucknow Bench) granted one week to take steps and listed the matter for 12.03.2026 in top ten cases; counsel: Archana Rawat for petitioner; C.S.C. and Pankaj Gupta for respondents.

What did the court decide?

One week and no more time granted to the petitioner to take steps; case listed on 12.03.2026 in top ten cases. ¶22

Meera Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Gonda and Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 538 of 2026

Meera Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Gonda And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Archana Rawat Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶11

This Court by means of order dated 02.02.2026, has passed following order :-

¶12

“ 1. Heard Ms. Archana Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 & 2 and Shri Vikram Datt Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.19.

¶13

2. Let notice be issued to respondents no.3 to 18.

¶14

3. Office is directed to issue dasti notices to learned counsel for the petitioner for service of notice on respondents no.3 to 18.

¶15

4. It transpires from the record of this case that in the case filed by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tarabganj, Gonda under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the order was reserved on 11.03.2025. It further transpires that instead of passing final order, the case was again listed on 18.03.2026 and was dismissed for nonprosecution on the same day.

¶16

5. It is very surprising to note that once the order was reserved on 11.03.2025, then how the matter was listed on 18.03.2025 and how even without issuing notice to the parties, the case was dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶17

6. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to take complete instructions in the matter by the next date.

¶18

7. List this matter on 13.02.2026, in top ten cases. ”

¶19

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to some personal problems the petitioner cannot take steps. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some more time to take steps.

¶20

WRIC No. 538 of 2026

¶21

¶22