HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5263 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.s 1 and 2 and perused the record. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer has been made for expeditious disposal of application under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Ravi Shankar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others), computerized No.202504680607310, pending before respondent No. 2 i.e. Tehsildar, Tehsil- Sadar, District Sultanpur. 4. It is urged that though the matter is being listed but for one reason or the other, the aforesaid case is not being decided. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petition would be sufficiently met in case respondent No. 2, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner. 6. It has been submitted by learned Standing Counsel that all the respondents in the aforesaid case have been not been served. 7. Considering the fact that the claim petition has been filed in 2025 itself of which proceedings are underway and from the perusal of the 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 due to heavy dockets and in a routine manner directions cannot Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ravi Shankar Shukla .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Sultanpur And Others .....Respondent(s) 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. 11. With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of. September 3, 2025 RKM. A227 No. 5263 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench