Indradev vs State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Addl. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 19664 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49812
 
Court No. - 18
 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3496 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- Indradev
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Addl. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard.

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents is dispensed with.

The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-

"(i) Issue the direction to the O.P. No. 2 to decide the correction application U/S 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 of the petitioner which is pending since 2014 bearing case No. 00810/2018 Computerized Case No. D201808300000810 (Indradev Versus State of U.P. and other) (Contained as Annexure No. 1) within specific time framed by this Hon'ble Court, pending before the O.P. No. 2 in the interest of justice.

(ii) Issue an order to quash the impugned order dated 19.06.2023 (Contained as Annexure No. 6) passed by the opposite party no. 2 by which he recalled his earlier interim order."

At the very outset, Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, says that he does not want to press the prayer no. 2, as the order dated 19.06.2023 has rightly been passed by the concerned court.

In regard to prayer no. 1, it is stated that application for correction preferred by the petitioner under Section 28 of Land Revenue Act 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") is pending as Case No. 00810/2018 Computerized Case No. D201808300000810 (Indradev Versus State of U.P. and other), though the application of such nature should be decided expeditiously as the proceedings are summary in nature as held in various pronouncements. As such indulgence of this Court is required.

It is further submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided.

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending. Accordingly in the ends of justice the opposite party No.-2-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Unnao is directed to consider and decide the application for correction inCase No. 00810/2018 Computerized Case No. D201808300000810 (Indradev Versus State of U.P. and other), most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed before it.

It is open for learned Counsel appearing for petitioner to press application seeking interim protection, which has already been preferred before the opposite party no.2, who shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law as also taking note of judgment placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court passed in the case of Vinod Kumar Bhalotia vs. State of U.P. reported in 2000 (18) LCD 532.

Order Date :- 28.7.2023

Jyoti/-