Allahabad High Court
/11364/2025 of JAGLAL Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. LKO. AND OTHERS on 9 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11364 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Suraj Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Sandeep Kr. Pandey, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 11364 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 Sri Suraj Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Sandeep Kr. Pandey, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 3.
2. The dispute in the present case arises out of the proceedings U/S 33 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 where the application on behalf of private respondents was rejected by means of order dated 08.04.2024. Against the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil - Tarabganj, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda an appeal was preferred before Sub-Divisional Magistrate who had issued notices and stayed the operation of the order dated 08.04.2024. Against the interim order dated 15.04.2025, present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner after arguing the matter at some length submits that petitioner has not put in appearance before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and submits that in case objection along with an application for vacation of the interim order is made then the same may be considered and decided with expedition.
4. Learned counsel for respondents do not object to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed with a liberty to the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suraj Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Jaglal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)
petitioner to file his objection along with an application for vacation of the interim order within next weeks before respondent No. 2 and in case such an application is made within the time prescribed, the said authority i.e. respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say, within a period of four weeks thereafter by reasoned and speaking order after hearing all the parties concerned in accordance with law.
6. The parties undertake to cooperate before respondent No. 2 and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment in the matter. December 9, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 11364 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench