HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11097 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents while Sri Mohan Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.4. 3. After arguing the matter at length learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer for expeditious disposal of proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code bearing computerized application No.T 202504230210776, dated 18.9.2025 pending before opposite party No.2- Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sohawal, District Ayodhya. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent No. 2, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner. 4. Considering the fact that the application has been filed only in September, 2025, we do not find that the same is pending for a substantially long time. The 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 Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to direct the trial court to decide the same expeditiously. 5. This Court is conscious of the fact that the trial court/competent authority are burdened to heavy dockets and in a routine manner directions cannot be passed to the trial court/competent authority to decide any particular case out of turn expeditiously. It is when some extra Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Sant Bhawan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) ordinary circumstance is made out only then it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 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 Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of. November 20, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 11097 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench