Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 170659 (ALL)

RAM CHANDRA v. COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION ), AYODHYA MANDAL, AYODHYA AND OTHERS

A227/6499/2024 · 2025-01-03

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:337 Court No. - 8 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6499 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Respondent :- Commissioner (Administration ), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Notice on behalf of respondent No.2 has been accepted by Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent Nos.3 to 16 is dispensed with. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of recall/restoration application dated 05.10.2020 and Appeal/Case No.109/00967/2020 (Computerized Case No.C202004000000967), Ramjeet and others Vs. Prahlad and others, under Section 331(3) U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 pending before respondent No.1. It is submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the aforesaid case has not yet been decided. Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the recall/restoration application dated 05.10.2020 and Appeal/Case No.109/00967/2020 (Computerized Case No.C202004000000967), Ramjeet and others Vs. Prahlad and others, under Section 331(3) U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 as expeditiously as possible, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.1 shall decide the aforesaid case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench