Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

KARUNA PATI DUBEY AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court directs the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate to dispose of the pending restoration application within six weeks, with no unnecessary adjournments.

Summary

Petitioners Karuna Pati Dubey and others filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate of Aurai, Bhadohi, to decide a pending restoration application filed under Section 209(h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The restoration application relates to a decree granted to the petitioners under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, dated 7 May 2019, which was later challenged by a private respondent through a recall application that was dismissed on 15 September 2022. The private respondent subsequently filed a second restoration application, which remains undecided since 15 April 2023. The State’s standing counsel raised no objection to the direction. The Court ordered the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate to dispose of the pending application within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order, prohibiting unnecessary adjournments without cause.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate to decide the pending restoration application.
  • Whether the delay in deciding the restoration application violates the petitioners' rights under the decree and applicable land reform statutes.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • writ of mandamus
  • restoration application
  • land reforms
  • U.P. Revenue Code
  • Article 226
  • Sub‑Divisional Magistrate
  • adjournment
  • recall application

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 33995 of 2026

Karuna Pati Dubey And 4 Others
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of Up And 2 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Gaurav Mishra, Vimal Chandra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : C.S.C.

Court No. - 1
                   HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

1. Heard Sri Vimal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. By means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus
directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate-Aurai, Tehsil Aurai, District
Bhadohi (Respondent No.2 herein) to decide the restoration application
bearing Case No.2100 of 2023 computerized case No.T202316670602100
(Alok Kumar Vs. Kailashpati and Karunapati and others) filed under Section
209(h) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is pending since 15.04.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petition filed
under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 was allowed by the revenue authority and final decree
dated 7.5.2019 was passed in favour of the petitioners. However, private
respondent No.3 filed a recall application which was dismissed by order
dated 15.09.2022. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has again filed a second
restoration application in the first restoration application and the same is
pending before the respondent No.2 but no final decision has been taken
till date.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State has no objection if the
respondent No.2 is directed to decide the aforesaid restoration application
in accordance with law.
5. In view thereof, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to
respondent no.2/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aurai, Tehsil Aurai, District
Bhadohi to dispose of the aforesaid pending restoration application within
                                                                                          WRIC No. 33995 of 2026
                                                                   2

                                    a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of
                                    this order, in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned.
                                    It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted without
                                    showing cause.


                                                                                         (Garima Prashad,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Kuldeep




Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.