Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 167614 (ALL)

GAURI SHANKAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE, LKO. AND OTHERS

A227/5862/2025 · 2025-09-25

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. - 5862 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners 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. 2 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow to decide Revision No. REV/1453/2022/Hardoi (Computerized Case No. R 20221033001453) - Rajaram Vs. Hanuman Prasad Agarwal, 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 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, 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 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, is directed to decide Revision No. REV/1453/2022/Hardoi (Computerized Case No. R 20221033001453) - Rajaram Vs. Hanuman Prasad Agarwal, 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 25, 2025 A. Verma Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sarvesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey (Alok Mathur,J.) Gauri Shankar And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench