RAKESH KUMAR v. ADDL. COMMISSIONER (JUDICIAL) AYODHYA DIVISION AYODHYA AND 2 OTHERS
A227/6317/2025 · 2025-10-28
Alok Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 202526 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 202526 (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. - 6317 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Kumar 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 respondent is dispensed with.
3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 1 - Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to decide Appeal No. 2770 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. C 202404000002770) - Rajaram Vs. Rakesh Kumar and Others, U/S 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 1 - Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, 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. 1 - Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, is directed to decide Appeal No. 2770 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. C 202404000002770) - Rajaram Vs. Rakesh Kumar and Others, U/S 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously, say within a period of eight 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.
October 28, 2025 A. Verma Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijay Bahadur Yadav, Ankit Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh (Alok Mathur,J.) Rakesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division Ayodhya And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench