Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 158975 (ALL)

DEVIDEEN v. ADDL. COMMISSIONER (JUDICIAL), AYODHYA MANDAL, AYODHYA AND OTHERS

A227/4985/2025 · 2025-08-22

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49471 Court No. - 5 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4985 of 2025 Petitioner :- Devideen Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi,Rajesh Kumar 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 respondents while notice on behalf of respondent No.5- Gaon Sabha has been accepted by Sri Mohan Singh. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed with the prayer to direct the opposite party No.1 to decide the interim relief application filed in appeal no.2237 of 2025 computerized case no.C-202504000002237 under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Devideen Vs. Puttu alias Putti Lal and others) as well as the appeal itself expeditiously. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code 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. 5. Learned State counsel does not oppose the aforesaid prayer. 6. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid submissions the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to consider and decided the application for interim relief with expedition, say within six weeks from the date service has been effected on the respondents, in case there is no legal impediment. 7. In case, it is not possible to decide the same within the time prescribed above, he shall decide the same within two weeks thereafter. 8. 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 :- 22.8.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench