GHANSHYAM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AYODHYA AND OTHERS
A227/5038/2025 · 2025-08-26
Alok Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 160074 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 160074 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5038 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondents is dispensed with.
3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 3 - Additional Sub District Magistrate, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Ayodhya, to decide Case No. T 202104230105869 - Ghanshyam Vs. Ram Gopal and Others, U/S 116 of the U.P. the Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 3 - Additional Sub District Magistrate, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Ayodhya, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, respondent no. 3 - Additional Sub District Magistrate, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Ayodhya, is directed to decide Case No. T 202104230105869 - Ghanshyam Vs. Ram Gopal and Others, U/S 116 of the U.P. the Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously, say within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
7. It is further directed that the parties to the case shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Court concerned, except in exceptional circumstances.
8. With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
August 26, 2025 A. Verma Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Pathak, Ram Suphal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ravi Singh (Alok Mathur,J.) Ghanshyam .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench