Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 154227 (ALL)

DEEPAK KUMAR MAURYA v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AYODHYA MANDAL, AYODHYA AND 8 OTHERS

A227/4476/2025 · 2025-07-31

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44273 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4476 of 2025 Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Maurya Respondent :- Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Singh,Anurag Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos 1, 2, while notice on behalf of respondent No.7 has been accepted by Sri Mohan Singh. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondents are hereby dispensed with. 3. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following reliefs:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the opposite party no.1 i.e. Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to expeditiously decide the stay application filed in Appeal No.1587/2025 (computerized no.C202501000001587) Santram and others vs. Ram Janak & others), under Section 207 U.P. Revenue Code, pending in the court of opposite party no.1 in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petition would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 1 considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits, respondent no. 1 - Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya is directed to decide the application for interim relief with expedition, say within next three weeks, if there is no legal impediment. 6. In case it is not possible to decide the same within the time prescribed above, he shall decide the same within two weeks thereafter. 7. It is further provided that in case it is not possible to decide the application for interim relief the respondent no.1 shall consider passing ad interim injunction if a case is so made out. 8. With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Renu/- Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench