SHILA YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE, LKO. AND OTHERS
A227/5812/2025 · 2025-09-24
Alok Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 167018 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 167018 (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. - 5812 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Singh, 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 respondent is dispensed with.
3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 2 - Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, to decide Revision No. 00372 of 2018 - Smt. Shailesh Yadav Vs. Sheela, U/S 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, expeditiously.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 2 - Additional Commissioner (Administration), 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. 2 - Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, is directed to decide Revision No. 00372 of 2018 - Smt. Shailesh Yadav Vs. Sheela, U/S 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, expeditiously, say within a period of six 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.
September 24, 2025 A. Verma Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Singh, Gargi Prakash Misra, Parikshit Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. (Alok Mathur,J.) Shila Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench