Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1815 (ALL)

Subhash Chandra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2024-08-05

DINESH PATHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANADMUS, directing the respondent no. 4, 5 and 6 to not to demarcate the land in dispute on the basis of map alteration order dated 14-06-2010. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of MANDANUS, directing the respondent no. 2, 3, 7 and 8 to take appropriate action for the execution of stay order dated 09-05-2022. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS, directing the parties to maintain status quo on the land in dispute, during pendency of case no. no. 97/1455 of 2010 before respondent no. 3 i.e. Consolidation Officer, District Varanasi.” 3. After due deliberations at length, learned counsel for the petitioner has orally prayed that original proceeding under Section 42-A of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act') (Case No. 97/1455 of 2010) may be decided, expeditiously. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after 15 years of de-notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act, contesting respondents no. 10 to 15 have moved an application under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act which has been allowed by ex parte order dated 14.06.2010. While the petitioner came to know qua order dated 14.08.2010, he has moved a restoration application dated 21.02.2022 which has been allowed vide order dated 27.05.2024. Consequently, original proceeding under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act is restored to its original number. It is further submitted that since 27.05.2024, no fruitful steps have been taken to decide the aforesaid application under Section 42-A of the U.P.C.H. Act. However, opposite parties are trying to change the nature of area of land in question in garb of the order dated 14.06.2010 which has already been recalled by the order dated 27.05.2024. 5. Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for Gaon Sabha have no objection, if a direction is issued to decide the aforesaid case, expeditiously. 6. In this conspectus as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending. 5. Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for Gaon Sabha have no objection, if a direction is issued to decide the aforesaid case, expeditiously. 6. In this conspectus as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending. Therefore, this court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, with a direction to Respondent no. 3 to decide the aforesaid case strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties expeditiously, preferably, within a period of five months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.