Ramhit And Another vs Sub Divisional Officer ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 25128 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:59552
 
Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4583 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Ramhit And Another
 
Respondent :- Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial) Mankapur Distt. Gonda And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prakash Singh
 
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.

Present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 1 to decide the case no. T2016083047073878, under section 24 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, related to Village Kachavan Bujurg, Tehsil Mankapur, District Gonda (Ramhit and another Versus Adalat & others), expeditiously within stipulated time."

At the very outset, learned counsel for the State says that the application under consideration was preferred under wrong provision as U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 came into force on 11.02.2016.

In response, learned counsel for the petitioner says that it is settled principle of law that mentioning wrong provision would not be fatal if the authority is having power to decide the subject, in issue and in the instant case, the application was preferred, though mentioning wrong provision before the opposite party No.1-Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Mankapur, District-Gonda and the application preferred under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 can also be decided by the Sub Divisional Officer as held by this Court in various pronouncements and in this view of the matter, the opposite party No.1 can treat the application, in issue, under Section 41 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and decide the same, as per said enactment. Reference has been made to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ritesh Motwani and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2018 (1) AWC 944 (LB), decided on 30.08.2017.

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

Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the present petition pending as the application, in issue, is pending and the same has to be decided as per law. Accordingly, the opposite party No.1-Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Mankapur, District-Gonda is directed to consider and decide the Case No.T2016083047073878, as per law, most expeditiously, after 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 next date fixed in the case, if possible and if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 18.9.2023

Vinay/-