Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 203502 (ALL)

RAM SAJEEVAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND 16 OTHERS

WRIC/35053/2025 · 2025-10-12

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35053 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent No. 2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj, to decide a suit bearing Case No. 395/294/264 [Phool Chandra and Others Vs. Ramnaresh and Others], under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, within a stipulated time period. Petitioner has asserted himself to be one of the defendants in the suit. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the 'order sheet' of the case, a copy whereof has been appended to the writ petition, to point out that although several dates have been fixed, but for some reason or the other, the matter is being adjourned and the delay in disposal of the case is causing undue hardship to the petitioner. Attention is also drawn to para 458 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, wherein it is provided that the court concerned is to make an endeavour to decide a suit within a period of one year from the date of its institution. Accordingly, the petitioner, by way of the present petition has sought for proceedings to be concluded expeditiously. Counsel appearing for the State-respondents has no objection if the proceedings are expedited. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ram Sajeevan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 16 Others .....Respondent(s) Having regard to the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the court/authority concerned would make an endeavor to decide the aforesaid case, in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of one year granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and keeping in view the mandate providing a period for one year for a suit to be decided, as noted above, provided there is no other legal impediment. October 13, 2025 Arun K. Singh WRIC No. 35053 of 2025 2 (Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad