WAQF MASJID STHIT GAURA SAILIK THRU.TREASURER, MOHD.KALEEM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF/ PRIN. SECY., REVENUE, LKO. AND 4 OTHERS
WRIC/6779/2025 · 2025-07-17
Alok Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 151942 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 151942 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40920
Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6779 of 2025 Petitioner :- Waqf Masjid Sthit Gaura Sailik Thru.Treasurer, Mohd.Kaleem Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Niteesh Kumar,Rajeev Narayan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Niteesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1, 2, 3 and 4.
2. In view of the proposed order notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with. 3.It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings in the present case have been initiated on the application of the petitioner under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code for mutation of the disputed property in favour of the petitioner. Orders allowing the application of the petitioner were passed by Tehsildar,, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki against which appeal was filed by the private respondent before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, District Barabanki where the appeal was allowed and after setting aside the order, the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the remand order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya which is pending consideration since May, 2025 and he has filed the present petition only seeking a direction to opposite party No.2 to consider and decide the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid revison expeditiously.
5. Learned Standing cousenl does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to consider and decide the application for interim relief within a period of three weeks from the date service on the respondents is found to be sufficient.
7. In case, there is any legal impediment in deciding the said
application within the time prescribed by this Court, liberty is also granted to the petitioner to press grant of ad interim relief if a case is so made out in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 17.7.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench