Sushila Rai v. Board of Revenue and 2 Others

Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3536 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sushila Rai Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kashi Nath Shukla,Sneh Ranjan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Kashi Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents no. 1 & 2. Notice on behalf of the Gram Sabha-respondent no.3 has been accepted by Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla.

¶3The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed against the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ghosi, under Section 209(J) in the case bearing No. 3774/2022 (State versus Malti Dvi) and the order dated 01.11.2022 passed in the Case No. RST/3381/2016, under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, is pending for orders.

¶4The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter was taken up and heard several times but no orders on the same have been passed. He further submits that although the next date fixed for hearing on the admission of the Revision is

18.12.2023, but there is a bleak chance of any order to be passed on that date also. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed an application for interim relief along with the aforesaid revision, which is also pending for orders.

¶5Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the learned Board of Revenue to pass appropriate orders in the aforesaid matter on the next date already fixed in the case pending before the Board.

¶6Taking 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.

¶7Accordingly, 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 Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj (respondent No.1), before whom the aforesaid application for interim relief is pending for disposal, to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, on the next date fixed in the matter or within a maximum period of one month, thereafter.

¶8With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 29.11.2023 Abhishek Gupta High Court of Judicature at Allahabad