Allahabad High Court
PEETAM @ PREETAM SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GARIMA PRASHAD
Holding
The Court granted mandamus, directing the Additional Collector to decide the pending case within two months of the order.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Shamli, to decide a pending revenue case (Case No. RST/115/2026) under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which had remained undecided for almost a year despite a prior order to decide it within three months. The petitioner argued that the delay violated the statutory time‑frame and sought expeditious disposal. The State's standing counsel raised no objection to the petition being disposed with a direction to the Additional Collector. The Court examined whether it could compel the administrative authority to act and found that a mandamus was appropriate to enforce the statutory duty. Accordingly, the Court ordered the Additional Collector to decide the case within two months of the certified copy of the order, prohibiting unnecessary adjournments. The petition was thus disposed with the mandated direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the Additional Collector to decide a pending case under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a specified time‑frame.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 128
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Section 128
- administrative law
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35511 of 2026
Peetam @ Preetam Singh And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following
relief:
"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Shamli-respondent no.3
to decide the Case No. RST/115/2026 (Computerised Case No.
D202609720000115) Naseem & others Vs. State of U.P. , under Section
128 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as expeditiously as possible preferrably
within the short span of time as granted by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 vide
order dated 18.11.2025, the matter had been remanded to the respondent
no.3 with a direction that the case be decided afresh within a period of three
months. It is further submitted that the Case No. RST115 of 2026, under
Section 128 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has not been decided for almost
one year. He prays that the said case may be directed to be decided
expeditiously.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that he has no objection in
the event this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3
to decide the pending suit, in accordance with law.
5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
WRIC No. 35511 of 2026
2
the respondent no.3/Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Shamli to
decide the pending case within a period of two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties.
(Garima Prashad,J.)
September 29, 2026
Lbm/-
Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…