Allahabad High Court
WRIB/3425/2026 of SMT. SANTOSH RANI Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS on 8 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3425 of 2026 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri Tej Om Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed notice upon the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3425 of 2026 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri Tej Om Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed notice upon the private respondents is hereby dispensed with. The limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is to issue a direction to decide the proceedings of restoration application filed by the petitioner in Revision No. 169 of 2025 (Smt. Shyam versus Smt. Devki Rani and others), under Section 48 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, stated to be pending before the respondent No. 2, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot Dham, Mahoba within a time frame fixed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that restoration application filed by the petitioner is pending consideration since June, 2026 and the purpose of filing the present petition would stand served if appropriate directions are issued to the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the aforesaid restoration application within a time frame fixed by this Court. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid proposition. Considering the totality of the circumstances and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would stand sub served if directions are issued for expeditious disposal of aforesaid case. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tej Om Prakash Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Santosh Rani .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by requiring the respondent No. 2, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot Dham, Mahoba seized with the restoration application filed by the petitioner in Revision No. 169 of 2025 (Smt. Shyam versus Smt. Devki Rani and others), under Section 48 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, to consider and decide the same, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months upon service of certified copy of the order of this Court, in accordance with law. October 9, 2026 Ravi Prakash WRIB No. 3425 of 2026 2 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad