Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 112406 (ALL)

TAWRAJ KHAN AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 13 OTHERS

WRIC/42558/2024 · 2025-04-28

Manish Kumar Nigam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66900 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42558 of 2024 Petitioner :- Tawraj Khan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhrigu Jee Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Mani Shukla Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "1) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Mirzapur to restore the deleted entries pertaining to khata no. 00460 gata no.1565/1 area 0.126 hectare of the petitioner in computerized/manual records in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (B) No.1990 of 2021 (Tawraj Khan and another Vs. Board of Revenue and others), whereby the order dated 09.11.2020, 18.11.2020 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar. Mirzapur and order dated28.09.2021 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No.1939/2020 have been set-aside. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Mirzapur to decide the application dated 30.11.2022 in Case No. 10097 of 2020 (State Vs. Mushtak and others) under Section 31/32 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 Mauza Kantit Tappa-96, Tehsil Sadar. District Mirzapur pending before him expeditiously within a period as may be specified by this Hon'ble Court." 3. By order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Writ B No. 1990 of 2024, this Court has allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to respondent No. 3 (presently respondent No. 2) to decide the case afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 4. Grievance of the petitioners is that despite an order passed by this Court, the case has not been decided. The appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to file a contempt application for disobedience of the order passed by this Court and not second writ petition for the same relief. 5. In view the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad