Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82132 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38843 of 2024 Petitioner :- Netra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 30 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kant Singh Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Sri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, and Shri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha- respondent No. 21 and perused the record. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiiorari quashing the order dated 9.8.2024 passed by respondent No. 2 Additional Commissioner (First) Aligarh Division Aligarh in Case No. 269 of 2024,Computerized Case No. C202418000000269, under Section 24(4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to consider, decide and disposed of Appeal being Case No. 269 of 2024, computerized Case No. C202418000000269, under Section 24(4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006." 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by respondents herein, is not all maintainable, as the same has been filed after a lapse of about five years even without any application for condonation of delay. He submtis that the filing of the appeal in question is a clear abuse of process of the court as the respondents by filing the said appeal are trying to drag the proceeding in respect of the controvercy, which has already been settled vide order dated 31.7.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner Aligarh Divsion Aligarh under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order dated 24.12.2019 passed in the proceedings under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been implemented on the spot and the petitioner has been delivered possession way back in the year 2021, and as such there is no valid reason available to the respondent No. 2 to grant any interim order at belated stage. 5. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the appellate court without taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case entertained the said appeal and passed an order of status-quo on 9.8.2024. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State- respondents has opposed the present writ petition on the ground that the present writ petition is pre-mature, as the appeal under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending for consideration before the Court of Additional Commissioner-Ist, Aligarh as Case No. 269 of 2024 (Nand Ram and others vs. Netra Pal Singh), wherein the petitioner has already put in his appearance and has filed objections. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep the present writ petition pending. 8. Since, the petitioner has already appeared in the said appeal and has filed his objections, he has got full opportunity to raise all his pleas and objections before the appellate court itself including the objection on the question of delay in filing the appeal. It has also been noticed that the appeal was filed in the month of February, 2024 and more than one year has passed. 9. Rule 183 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under: " The appellate or the revisional court shall, endeavour to finally decide the appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded." 10. There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within stipulated period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded. 11. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the appeal within stipulated period as to be fixed by this Court. 12. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 4 to 20 and 22 to 31 is dispensed with. 13. Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Additional Commissioner (Ist), Aligarh Divsion Aligarh (respondent No. 2) to finally decide the said Appeal No. 269 of 2024, computerized Case No. C202418000000269, under Section 24(4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months after taking into consideration all the objections and the pleas raised by the petitioner, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. 14. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments will be granted to either of the parties and any adjournment, if prayed for, may be granted only in exceptional circumstances. 15. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Sumaira Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad