Allahabad High Court
RAM DAYALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 27 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The High Court did not interfere with the order and directed the lower court to decide the pending restoration application expeditiously.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Dayal, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Gaon Sabha subsequently filed a restoration application against that order, which was stayed. The learned Standing Counsel informed the court of these developments. The High Court, noting that the restoration application is pending, declined to interfere with the original order and directed the concerned lower court to decide the restoration application expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without any substantive ruling on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the order passed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
- Whether the petition should be stayed pending the outcome of the restoration application filed by the Gaon Sabha.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 24
Subjects
- writ petition
- restoration application
- Section 24
- U.P. Revenue Code
- stay order
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 11240 of 2026
Ram Dayal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 27 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Baijant Kumar Mishra, Shiv Shankar
Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Instructions filed today by learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.
2. On the basis of instructions, learned Standing Counsel submitted that
against the order passed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
restoration application was filed by the Gaon Sabha in which the order has
been stayed.
3. In view of these developments, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
4. Since the restoration application is pending, it will be appropriate to direct
the concerned court to decide the same expeditiously.
5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of finally, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, with a direction to
respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned restoration
application, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of
this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties and giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no
other legal impediment.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 18, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…