Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 92584 (ALL)

SHIV SAHAB MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIB/3611/2025 · 2025-09-09

Chandra Kumar Rai

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3611 of 2025 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Kailash Nath Singh, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent no.3 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 3. The instant petition has been filed for mandamus directing the respondent no.2/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi to decide the Revision No.972 of 2009 (Amar Nath and others vs. State and others), under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act within stipulated period. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforementioned revision pending under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act should be decided within time bound period. He further submitted that one Writ-B No.47802 of 2016 filed before this Court has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 15.4.2025, as such, the pending revision should be decided on merit expeditiously. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that parties to the revision have expired and no substitution application has been filed by the revisionist, as such, the prayer for expeditious disposal cannot be allowed. He further submitted that all the private parties to the revision have not been impleaded in the instant petition, as such, instant petition should be dismissed. 6. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and keeping in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sadhana Maurya Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shiv Sahab Maurya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) view of the facts and circumstances, respondent no.2/ Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the aforementioned Revision No.972 of 2009 (Amar Nath and others vs. State and others), under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that petitioner/ revisionist shall file application to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased party within period of three weeks from today which will be disposed of before deciding the revision as directed above. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of. September 10, 2025 Rameez WRIB No. 3611 of 2025 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad