Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 160522 (ALL)

VINOD KUMAR @ VINOD SAROJ v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AYODHYA MANDAL, AYODHYA AND ANOTHER

A227/5112/2025 · 2025-08-29

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5112 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Bhup Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondent is dispensed with. 3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 1 - Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, to decide Case No. 01724 of 2016 (Computerized Case No. C201604000001724) - Subhash Chandra Vs. Vinod Kumar, U/S 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, expeditiously. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 1 - Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, 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. 1 - Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya , is directed to decide Case No. 01724 of 2016 (Computerized Case No. C201604000001724) - Subhash Chandra Vs. Vinod Kumar, U/S 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, expeditiously, say within a period of seven 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 29, 2025 A. Verma Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhup Chandra Singh, Abdul Raheem Khan, Ravi Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. (Alok Mathur,J.) Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Saroj .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And Another .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench