Vijay Bahadur vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 340 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vijay Bahadur vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 10 March, 2026

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:17544
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1015 of 2026   
 
   Vijay Bahadur    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda And Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Kaushal Mani Tripathi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 6
 
   
 
 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.      

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent Nos. 2 to 15 are dispensed with.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of his Case bearing Revision No. 925/2024 Computerized Case No. 202454083000000925 (Vijay Bahadur v. Dinesh Kumar and others) filed under Section 48(1) U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 pending before the respondent No.1.

It is 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.

Learned standing counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the extract of the order-sheet and has pointed out that in majority of the dates, the proceedings before the respondent No.1 could not advance on account of the resolution passed by the Members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that the petitioner will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall also cooperate in the early disposal of the aforesaid case.

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.2 to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings of Case bearing Revision No. 925/2024 Computerized Case No. 202454083000000925 (Vijay Bahadur v. Dinesh Kumar and others) filed under Section 48(1) U.P.C.H. Act, 1953, as expeditiously as possible, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking, as mentioned above, along with a copy of this order. In case, if the petitioner does not furnish the aforesaid undertaking, then the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

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

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

March 10, 2026

Asheesh