Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 21 December, 2023
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242214 Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42468 of 2023 Petitioner :- Dharmendra Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Ojha,Gauri Shankar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Shri Rajendra Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.
2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the grand-fathers of the petitioners wwere in possession of Gata No.948 area 560 kadi and subsequently on the basis of adverse possession, they have recorded as sirdar by order dated 21.7.1967 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Lalganj, Azamgarh in Case No.1099/16492 (Sudarsan vs. State). It has further been submitted that the name of the grand-fathers of the petitioners was not recorded in the revenue records while on applications made by the other villagers, their name was duly recorded in the revenue records and, accordingly, it is in the aforesaid facts that a suit under Section 229B of UP ZA & LR Act was instituted by the grand-father of the petitioners. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the grand-father of the petitioner died due to which the said case was dismissed for want of prosecution. In the said suit, when the petitioners came to know about the dismissal, they have moved an application for restoration, which still pending consideration. It has further been submitted that during the pendency of the restoration, an application for interim relief was filed by the petitioners, which was rejected by means of the impugned order dated 3.10.2023 on the ground that said land has been allotted to Jal Jeewan Mission and also that the application for restoration is highly barred by time.
3. It is in the aforesaid facts, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3.10.2023 and also a direction has been sought to decide the Original Suit No.85/1983 (New No.3499/2023) titled Sudarshan vs. State, expeditiously.
4. Counsel for the petitioners, after arguing the matter at some length, confines his prayer to Prayer No.2 and prays that a suitable direction may be issued to the competent authority to decide the application for restoration preferred by the petitioners for restoration of the suit under Section 229B of UP ZA & LR Act, expeditiously.
5. Learned Standing Counsel does not object to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to decide the application for restoration preferred by the petitioners for restoration of the suit filed under Section 229B expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 21.12.2023 LN Tripathi