Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175954

Court No. - 49

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3024 of 2023

Petitioner :- Chamela Devi And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrawan Kumar Pandey,Ankit Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Azad Rai

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel

representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

Notice on behalf of Gram Sabha has been accepted by Shri Azad

Rai, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee.

The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following

relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding

the respondent No. 2 (Judicial Member Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj)

to decide the Revision No. 247 of 2007-2008 (Rama Shankar Mishra and

another vs. Chamela Devi and others) under Section 333 of the U.P.

Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, within stipulated period

which is fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is

the respondent in the revision pending before the learned Board of

Revenue-respondent No. 2. The aforesaid revision was admitted

vide order dated 13.3.2008 and interim order was also passed in

favour of the revisionist/respondent. Due to the pendency of the

aforesaid revision and the interim order granted in favour of the

revisionist, the present petitioners are facing undue hardship.

Para 458 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual provides as under:

"458. Speedy Disposal- (1) The court shall endeavour to finally decide the

suit within a period of one year from the date of institution of the suit and if

the suit is not decided within the period aforesaid, the reason for the same

shall be recorded.

(2) The appellate or the revisional court shall endeavour to finally decide the

appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the

date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not

decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be

recorded. "

Since, there is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are

not concluded within the period of time as provided under the

aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the

extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious

disposal of the above mentioned case, within stipulated period as

fixed by this Court.

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the

service of notice upon respondent Nos. 4/1/1, 4/1/2 and 5 is

dispensed with.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in

keeping this writ petition pending.

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the

consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally

dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Judicial

Member Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj (respondent No. 2),

before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to

decide the Revision No. 247 of 2007-2008 (Rama Shankar Mishra

and another vs. Chamela Devi and others) under Section 333 of the

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, strictly in

accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit

after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned,

expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is

any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary

adjournments be granted to either of the parties.

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed

of.

Order Date :- 6.9.2023

Sumaira

Digitally signed by :-

SUMAIRA AQUIL

High Court of Judicature at Al