Allahabad High Court
SHYAM NARAYANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court directed the Settlement Officer to decide the pending case within five months and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mau to decide a pending case (No. 0755 of 2023) under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation (CH) Act, 1953, and to do so expeditiously. The respondent’s standing counsel raised no objection to such a direction. The High Court observed that there was no useful purpose in keeping the matter pending and ordered the Settlement Officer to pass a reasoned order within five months of the certified copy of the order, after hearing the parties, without unnecessary adjournments. No merits of the underlying dispute were examined. The petition was consequently disposed of with the said direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the Settlement Officer to decide a pending case under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation (CH) Act, 1953.
- Whether the writ petition should be dismissed without adjudicating on the merits of the underlying case.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Consolidation (CH) Act, 1953 — s. 11(1)
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- settlement officer
- U.P. Consolidation Act
- Section 11(1)
- expeditious disposal
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 3381 of 2025
Shyam Narayan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Rai
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 concerned court i.e. Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, Mau to decide the Case No. 0755 of 2023,
Computerized Case No. 2023541155100000755 (Ram Harakh
and others Vs. Shyam Charan and others) under Section
11(1) of the U.P.CH. Act, 1953, expeditiously as possible as
may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court which is pending before
Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mau."
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, Mau (Respondent no.2) 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
WRIB No. 3381 of 2025
2
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.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
March 19, 2026
Neetu
Digitally signed by :-
NEETU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…