Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD RASHIDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court directed the Up‑Ziladhikari to decide the pending case within six months, effectively granting the mandamus relief.
Summary
Petitioner Mohammad Rashid filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Up‑Ziladhikari of Sagadi, District Azamgarh (Respondent No.3) to decide case No. 8429/2026 (Shivanand et al. v. Imtiyaz et al.) pending under section 38(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner alleged that despite several dates being fixed, the case remained undecided and urged the court to compel a speedy disposal. The High Court examined the maintainability of the petition and the scope of mandamus to compel an administrative authority to act within a reasonable time. Without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying revenue dispute, the Court dismissed the petition but issued a direction to the respondent to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within six months of the order, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments. The order was signed on 18 May 2026 by Justice Manish Kumar Nigam.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the Up‑Ziladhikari to decide a pending revenue case within a reasonable time.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite not challenging the merits of the underlying case.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 38(1)
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- administrative law
- delay
- U.P. Revenue Code
- expeditious disposal
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 19308 of 2026
Mohammad Rashid
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Binod Kumar, Mani Shankar
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 to the Up-Ziladhikari, Sagadi, District
Azamgarh/Respondent no. 3 to decide the case No.
8429/2026 (Shivanand and others Vs. Imtiyaz and others)
under section 38(1) U.P. Revenue Code 2006, pending before
him, within such reasonable time."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid case
is pending consideration. 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. 3 to consider and decide the aforementioned case, in
WRIC No. 19308 of 2026
2
accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of
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.
May 18, 2026 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…