Allahabad High Court
Chandra Keshaw Prasad Chaudhary vs Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. ... on 17 August, 2023
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:54291 Court No. - 18 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4081 of 2023 Petitioner :- Chandra Keshaw Prasad Chaudhary Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Member And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitesh Pratap Singh,Naveen Kumar Singh,Shesh Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Akash Srivastava, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Amitesh Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shasank Singh, learned State Counsel.
In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents is dispensed with.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of stay application/interim relief application pending in Computer Case No. R20230531001182 (REV/1182/2023) Chandra Keshaw Prasad Chaudhary Versus Additional Commissioner (Administration) First Gorakhpur and others), under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901"), pending before the respondent No.1- Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, since 25.04.2023.
Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that an application seeking interim relief/temporary injunction in revision bearing Computer Case No. R20230531001182 (REV/1182/2023) Chandra Keshaw Prasad Chaudhary Versus Additional Commissioner (Administration) First Gorakhpur and others), filed under Section 219 of the Act of 1901, is pending before respondent no.1 since 25.04.2023. As such indulgence of this Court is required.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel stated that the revision has not been admitted, as appears from the order dated 29.05.2023 annexed as Annexure No. 4 and being so, no indulgence of this is required, at this stage. However, on being asked, he could not dispute that as per para 458(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, an appeal or revision should preferably be decided within a period of six months.
In the instant case, it appears from the order sheet that even after lapsed of three and a half month, the revision has not been admitted by the respondent no.1 nor the application for interim relief has been decided.
In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the Authority concerned to consider and decide the pending application seeking interim relief, within two months from the next date fixed in the matter, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and he shall also make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings taking note of the provisions in this regard, expeditiously say within a further period of six months. For conducting the proceedings in the time specified, unnecessary adjournments be avoided.
It is made clear that the 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 observations, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.8.2023 Jyoti/-