Allahabad High Court
WRIC/10752/2025 of RAJENDRA Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND OTHERS on 21 November 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10752 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 10752 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 petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondents are hereby dispensed with.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that an application was given on behal fof the peiteoirn before the SDM, Ambedkar Nagar U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and after due procedure the said proceeding were finalised by means of order dated 31.03.2025 and even the said order was executed and the petitioner is in occupation of his land pursuant to the orders of demarcation.
4. It has been submitted that private respondents thereafter filed an application for recall which has been allowed by impugned order dated 30.08.2025. The grievance of the petitioner is despite the recall application is allowed and the proceedings U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code have been restored but the same have not been decided till the date.
5. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case respondent No. 2 is directed to conclude the proceedings U/S 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijay Pal Verma, Shohit Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Rajendra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits, respondent no. 2 - Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar is directed to decide conclude the proceedings U/S 24 of Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
7. It is further directed that the parties to the case shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Court concerned, except in exceptional circumstances.
8. With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. November 21, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 10752 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench