Allahabad High Court
SHRI AVISHEK JAISWALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The Court directed the Collector to decide the pending revenue proceeding under Section 30(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 within three months, after hearing, without unnecessary adjournments.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Collector of Mau to decide a pending restoration/recall application and a revenue case under Section 30(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The restoration application was subsequently allowed, leaving only the revenue proceeding, which had been pending since 2020, as the subject of the petition. The petitioner argued that the delay violated principles of expeditious justice and requested the court to order a decision within three months. The Court, without expressing any view on the merits of the revenue dispute, exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue a mandamus directing the Collector to decide the matter after hearing the parties, without unnecessary adjournments. The petition was disposed of with a specific direction that the decision be rendered within three months of the certified copy of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the Collector to decide a pending revenue proceeding under Section 30(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
- Whether the Collector must be compelled to dispose of the proceeding expeditiously, within a specified time frame.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 30(2)
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Section 30(2)
- expeditious disposal
- administrative law
- revenue case
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 27385 of 2026
Shri Avishek Jaiswal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Bishan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Restoration order dated 14.7.2026 passed by Collector Mau is
taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Satyam Kumar Verma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr.
Gaurav Bishan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shashi
Kant Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent No. 2, the Collector/District Magistrate,
Mau, to decide the Restoration/Recall Application No. 1236 of 2025
filed in Revenue Case No. 00095 of 2021, as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within a period of three months or within such time as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondent No. 2, the Collector/District Magistrate,
Mau, to conclude and decide Revenue Case No. 00095 of 2021 (arising
out of the proceedings under Section 30(2) of the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code, 2006) relating to Ansh Nirdharan/Physical Demarcation
of Gata No. 27- Mi, Mauza Imliya, Tehsil Maunath Bhanjan, District
Mau, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned
parties, without granting unnecessary adjournments within such time as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
WRIC No. 27385 of 2026
2
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of instant
petition, pending restoration application filed by private respondents
has been allowed and proceeding under Section 30 (2) of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 has been restored to its original number, as
such, petitioner is not pressing the prayer no."a" rather he is pressing
the prayer no."b". He submitted that proceeding under Section 30 (2)
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated in the year 2020, as such,
appropriate direction be issued for expeditious disposal of
aforementioned proceeding. He further placed the order sheet of the
pending proceeding in order to demonstrate that matter is not
proceeding expeditiously.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition
stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No.2,
Collector Mau to consider and decide the aforementioned proceeding
under Section 30 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in accordance with
law expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months
from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 11, 2026
Vandana Y.
Digitally signed by :-
VANDANA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…