Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 194850 (ALL)

GAYA PRASAD AND ANOTHER v. ADDL. COMMISSIONER JUDICIAL, AYODHYA REGION, AYODHYA AND 3 OTHERS

A227/7248/2025 · 2025-12-17

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. - 7248 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for the State respondents while notice on behalf of respondent No.3 has been accepted by Sri Mohan Singh. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondent is dispensed with. 2. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed praying for expeditious disposal of stay application dated 10.7.2025 filed in Revision No.2024/2025, computerized case No. C-202504000002024, under Section 210 of U.P.Revenue Code "Gaya Prasad and another Vs. Gram Panchayat and others", pending before Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the revision preferred by the petitioner no order has been passed on the application for stay while on the other hand interference is being caused by the respondents on the disputed property for which there is requirement for expeditious disposal of the interim relief application. Learned State counsel does not oppose the aforesaid prayer. 4. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid submissions the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decided the application for interim relief with expedition, say within six weeks from the date service has been effected on the respondents, in case there is no legal impediment. In case, it is not possible to decide the same within the time prescribed above, he shall decide the same within two weeks thereafter. It is further provided that in case it is not possible to decide the application for interim relief the respondent No.1 shall consider passing ad interim injunction if a case is so made out. December 17, 2025/RKM. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh (Alok Mathur,J.) Gaya Prasad And Another .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench