HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5004 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard 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 are hereby dispensed with. 3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 1 to 4 not to dispossess the petitioners from the Gata No. 597 area 0.1260 hect. situated in Village - Neora, Pargana - Basaudi, Tehsil - Rudauli, District Ayodhya during the pendency of the case No. 4181/2022, U/S 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Mohd. Akeel Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others) pending before respondent No. 2. 4. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer for a suitable direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the case No. 4181/2022, U/S 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Mohd. Akeel Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others) pending before him expeditiously. 5. It has also been urged that though the matter is being listed but for one reason or the other, the aforesaid case is not being decided. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petition would be sufficiently met in case respondents consider and decides the aforesaid matter in the time bound manner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Virendra Kumar Shukla, Shyam Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Mohd. Shakeel Khan And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate / Collector, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s) 7. Considering the fact that the claim petition was filed in which proceedings are underway and from the perusal of the writ petition, there is no disclosure of any extra ordinary circumstance as to why this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the trial court to decide the same expeditiously. 8. This Court is conscious of the fact that the trial court/competent authority are burdened to heavy dockets and in a routine manner directions cannot be passed to the trial court/competent authority to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously. It is when some extra ordinary circumstance is made out only then it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There also liberty should be given to the petitioner to place his grievances before the trial court/competent authority who after looking into the urgency as well as dockets situation and pass appropriate orders to expedite the aforesaid matter. In the present case no such circumstances has been mentioned or made out requiring interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditiously disposal of the aforesaid case before the trial court/competent authority. In case, such application is moved within two weeks from today the trial court/competent authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say, within three weeks thereafter. In case, the trial court/competent authority is prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out it shall pass suitable order thereupon in accordance with law. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and the Court/authority concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. 10. With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of. August 25, 2025 Ravi/ A227 No. 5004 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench