Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 154863 (ALL)

SURYABHAN SINGH v. SETTLEMENT OFFICER OF CONSOLIDATION, AYODHYA AND OTHERS

A227/4531/2025 · 2025-07-30

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44021 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4531 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suryabhan Singh Respondent :- Settlement Officer Of Consolidation, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashansa Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State respondent no.1. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents no. 2 to 5, is dispensed with. 2. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed with following prayer:- "Issue a direction to the opposite party No.1 i.e. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya, District Ayodhya to decide the interim relief application, which is pending in Appeal No. 828, under Section 11(1) of Ul.P.C.H. Act (Suryabhan Singh and others Vs. Haribhan Pratap and others), which is pending before him since 26.06.2025 on the date fixed i.e. on 28.7.2025 or within a time frame as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court." 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been admitted but no interim order has been passed on the application for interim relief while on the other hand interference is being caused by the respondents on the disputed property for which there is requirement for expeditious disposal of the interim relief application. He further submits that the respondents have been served. 4. Learned State counsel does not oppose the aforesaid prayer. 5. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid submissions the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decided the application for interim relief with expedition, say within next six weeks. 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. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 30.7.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench