Allahabad High Court
FULMATIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court directed the respondent to decide the pending case within six months, without expressing any opinion on its merits.
Summary
The petitioner, Fulmati, filed a writ petition under Section 33(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 2006, seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent (a lower court) to decide the pending case T20220547011095 (Fulmati vs. Nageshar) which had been delayed since 2022 despite several dates being fixed. The petitioner argued that the undue delay violated the statutory requirement for timely disposal. The High Court examined the procedural history and noted that the petition did not require a determination on the merits of the underlying dispute. The Court declined to opine on the merits and instead focused on the procedural lapse. It issued an order directing the respondent to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within six months of the certified copy of the order, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments, provided no other legal impediment exists. The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when a lower court unduly delays the disposal of a case pending under Section 33(1) of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006?
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued directing a lower court to decide a pending case within a specified time frame without addressing the merits of the case?
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 33(1)
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- Section 33(1)
- U.P. Land Revenue Code
- delay in disposal
- expeditious hearing
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 14664 of 2026
Fulmati
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.B. Pal, Umesh Kumar Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing and commanding the respondent по. 2 to decide
the case bearing no. T20220547011095 (Fulmati vs.
Nageshar), under Section 33(1) of U.P. Land Revenue Code
2006, pending before him, within stipulated period as
possible as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid case
under Section 33(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending
since 2022. It is further contended that several dates have been
fixed but the same has not been decided yet. He prayed that the
same may be decided, expeditiously.
4. No useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition
pending.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present
petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent
No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned case, in
accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of
WRIC No. 14664 of 2026
2
six months 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.
April 20, 2026 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…