Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 155874 (ALL)

TEJ BAHADUR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT., LKO. AND OTHERS

A227/4649/2025 · 2025-08-07

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46581 Court No. - 5 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4649 of 2025 Petitioner :- Tej Bahadur Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Arun Chand Pandey,Ram Bahadur Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 2 (i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya) to decide the application for extension of the interim order dated 16.05.2025 pending before him bearing Case / Appeal No. 993/2025, Computerized Case No. C202504000000993 (Tej Bahadur Vs. Dan Bahadur & others) Under Section 207 of Uttar Pradesh land Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously as soon as possible or within stipulated period of time as framed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice." 3. A preliminary objection has been made by learned Standing Counsel stating that for the same relief the petitioner has approached this Court earlier by filing a writ petition being Matter Under Article 227 No. 4336 of 2025 where the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. He submits that no liberty was granted to the petitioner for filing a fresh writ petition. 4. Accordingly, considering the preliminary objections, this Court finds that on the previous occasion the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed and no liberty was granted to the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, a fresh writ petition for the same relief would not be maintainable. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 7.8.2025/Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench