Allahabad High Court
BIKAU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court directed the Settlement Officer to decide the pending appeal within five months and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Section 11(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation (Land) Act seeking a mandamus directing the Settlement Officer, Respondent No.2, to decide a pending appeal (Appeal No. 1498, Sona Devi v. Bikau) within a fixed period. The standing counsel for the petitioners raised no objection to the direction. The High Court, noting that continued delay served no useful purpose, ordered the Settlement Officer to pass a reasoned order within five months of the certified copy of the judgment, without unnecessary adjournments, and to afford a hearing to the parties. No observations were made on the merits of the underlying appeal. The writ petition was consequently disposed of with the said direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation (Land) Act directing the Settlement Officer to decide a pending appeal within a stipulated time.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Consolidation (Land) Act — s. 11(1)
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- Section 11(1)
- U.P. Consolidation (Land) Act
- settlement officer
- pending appeal
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 231 of 2026
Bikau And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Roop Shandilya, Vinay
Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the
following relief:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 decide
pending appeal bearing Appeal No. 1498 (
Computerized Case No. C202254054400001498)
(Sona Devi Versus Bikau and others) under
Section 11(1) of the U.P.CH. Act, within stipulated
period as fix by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection, if
a direction is issued to decide the aforesaid case, expeditiously.
4. 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 Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, Padrauna, District-Kushinagar (Respondent
no.2) to decide the aforesaid case strictly in accordance with law,
by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording
WRIB No. 231 of 2026
2
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.
5. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed
of.
March 19, 2026
Neetu
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NEETU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…