Prem Taneja v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3618 of 2023 Petitioner :- Prem Taneja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Gyanendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶1Heard Sri Gyanendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arunesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents no.1 & 2 and perused the record.

¶2The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief: "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the Revision No. 2762 of 2017, under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (Computer Case No.AL20170960002762) (Prem Taneja vs. State of U.P. and others) expeditiously and within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(ii) ................................

(iii) ..............................."

¶3The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Revision No.2762 of 2017, under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is pending for disposal since 2017 before the respondent no.2. He submits that the petitioner is suffering hardship because of the pendency of the aforesaid case.

¶4Para 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. "

¶5There 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.

¶6Learned 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.

¶7In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent no.3 is dispensed with.

¶8Taking 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.

¶9Accordingly, 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 the learned Board of Revenue (respondent No.2), before whom the Case No.2762 of 2017 (Computerized Case No. AL20170960002762) is pending for disposal, to decide the same 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 six 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, if prayed for, will be permissible to be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

¶10With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Abhishek Gupta High Court of Judicature at Allahabad