Allahabad High Court
WRIB/4521/2026 of SHAHNAZAR Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND 4 OTHERS on 7 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 4521 of 2026 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4521 of 2026
Court No. - 50
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
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.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, to decide the restoration application dated 02.08.2022, filed by the petitioner in Revision No. 94 of 2021, under Section 48(1) of UPCH Act, with respect to chakdar No. 227, pending before him, within the time frame fixed by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application is pending consideration since long and the purpose of filing the present petition would stand served if appropriate directions are issued to the respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the aforesaid application.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid proposition.
5. Considering the totality of the circumstances and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would stand sub served if directions are issued for expeditious disposal of application.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent no. 1 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, to decide the restoration application dated 02.08.2022, filed by the petitioner in Revision No. 94 of 2021, under Section 48(1) of UPCH Act, with respect Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Astitva Srivastava, Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shahnazar .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
to chakdar No. 227, on merits, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned and to make all endeavour to decide the revision, expeditiously, preferably without granting any adjournment either of the parties within a period of one months from the date of service of certified copy of the order of this Court.
7. For a period of one month or till decision of the restoration application, whichever is earlier, parties shall maintain status-quo over plot in dispute. October 8, 2026 v.k. updh. WRIB No. 4521 of 2026 2 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad