Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56233 (ALL)

RAM KHIYAL v. STATE OF UP AND 9 OTHERS

WRIC/14953/2025 · 2025-05-12

Manish Kumar Nigam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77958 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14953 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Khiyal Respondent :- State Of Up And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No. 604 of 2023 (Computerize Case No. C202314000000604) (Ramkhiyal Vs. Sheopujan) Under Section 331(3) U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 as well as order dated 11.11.1992 passed by the respondent No.4 in Case No. 2/2 Under Section 229B (Annexure No.2 to this writ petition). ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to mutate the name of petitioner in place of deceased Bhuwra over the Arazi No. 15 Area 0.4540 hectare situated in Village Sultanpur, Pargana-Anguli, Tehsil Shahganj, District- Jaunpur in pursuance of registered Will deed dated 09.05.1991." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a decree was passed against the petitioner under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on 11.11.1992. Revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default on 12.09.2000. Thereafter, a restoration application was filed and the same was dismissed in default by order dated 12.12.2005. Again, a restoration application was filed and the same was also dismissed in default by order dated 11.10.2017. Now, the last restoration application filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed in default by order dated 11.11.2024. 4. After the dismissal of the revision for want of prosecution, the applications for restoration filed by the petitioner has been dismissed for want of prosecution at least three times. 5. In view of the above, I find no illegality in the orders passed by the courts below. 6. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 13.5.2025/Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad