NANDLAL v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT., LKO. AND OTHERS
/7166/2025 · 2025-12-12
Alok Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 173886 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 173886 (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. - 7166 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Kr. Awasthi, 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 are hereby dispensed with.
3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to State-respondents to decide Case No. 2280/2024 Computerized Case No. C202404000002280, U/S 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (Manoj Kumar and another Vs. Sitaram and others) expeditiously.
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 State-respondent, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits, respondent no. 2 - Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Divisiona, Ayodhya is directed to decide Case No. 2280/2024 Computerized Case No. C202404000002280, U/S 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (Manoj Kumar and another Vs. Sitaram and others), expeditiously, say within a period of one year from the date of production Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jnanendra Pratap Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Nandlal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)
of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
8. 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.
9. With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. December 12, 2025 Ravi/ A227 No. 7166 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench