Allahabad High Court
A227/7444/2025 of RAJ BAHADUR AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND 7 OTHERS on 19 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7444 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri Mohan Singh for the Gram Panchayat. 2. In view of the proposed order notice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7444 of 2025
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, 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 petitioners, learned Standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri Mohan Singh for the Gram Panchayat.
2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.
3. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed with a prayer to direct opposite party No.2 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to decide stay application in revision No.3661/2025 (computerized case No.C 202504000003661) "Ram Achal and others Vs. Ram Nayan and others" expeditiously.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the revision no order has been passed on the application for interim relief while on the other hand interference is being caused by the respondents on the disputed property for which there is requirement for expeditious disposal of the interim relief application pending in the said case. Learned State counsel does not oppose the aforesaid prayer.
5. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid submissions the petition is disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to consider and decided the application for interim relief with expedition, say within six weeks from the date service has been effected on the respondents, in case there is no legal impediment.
6. In case, it is not possible to decide the same within the time prescribed above, he shall decide the same within two weeks thereafter. It is further provided that in case it is not possible to decide the application for interim relief the authority concerned shall consider passing ad interim injunction, if a case is so made out. December 19, 2025 RKM. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Onkar Nath Tiwari, Sandeep Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh (Alok Mathur,J.) Raj Bahadur And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench