Allahabad High Court
A227/7390/2025 of VIMLA DEVI @ VIMLA Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND ANOTHER on 19 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7390 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present petition under
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7390 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 petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and perused the material available on record.
2. By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer has been made to decide the restoration/ recall application dated 31.12.2022 moved by the petitioner in Case No. 204/2021-22 under Section 9Ka(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953; Devi Prasad Vs. Ramraj and others, expeditiously as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper, (contained in Annexure to this petition), in the interest of justice.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that on previous occasion also a petition being Writ Petition Matter under Article 227 No. 3373 of 2024 was filed on behalf of Vimal Devi @ Vimla, which was disposed of by means of order dated 23.7.2024 directing the respondent no.2 to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings of Case bearing Recall Application No. 204 of 2021-22 under Section 9Ka(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953; Devi Prasad Vs. Ramraj and others most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.
4. It is further submitted that despite expiry of the said period, the aforesaid case could not be decided and consequently the present writ petition, which is the second writ petition, for the same cause of action has been filed.
5. It is noticed that once this Court has already interfered and passed appropriate direction, second writ petition for the same cause of action would not be maintainable. In case any direction of this Court are not complied with, then the petitioner has a remedy of moving an application for contempt before the appropriate Bench but the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Himanshu Pathak, Brij Bhushan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vimla Devi @ Vimla .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s)
second writ petition is not maintainable for the same cause of action and it is an abuse of process of the law.
6. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed. December 19, 2025 Muk A227 No. 7390 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench