Allahabad High Court
KRISHNA KUMAR SAHANIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
The petition was dismissed because it did not disclose the order passed after the notices, rendering the relief sought untenable.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) to decide Appeal No.1134 of 2025 expeditiously under Section 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. The court noted that while notices were issued to the opposite party on 17-04-2025, the petition failed to disclose any order that resulted from those notices. Because the required factual basis was missing, the court held that the relief sought could not be granted. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The court, however, directed the lower court to decide the appeal strictly according to law without unnecessary adjournments, unless a legal impediment exists.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can order the Additional District Magistrate to decide the appeal expeditiously under Section 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 despite the petition’s lack of information on the post‑notice order.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. 14, 233(2), 59
Subjects
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- Section 59
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules
- High Court
- adjournment
- appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 7912 of 2026
Krishna Kumar Sahani
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Gautam, Ashutosh Kumar
Gautam
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter-alia with the
prayer to direct the Respondent No.3, Additional District Magistrate
(Judicial) to decide the Appeal No.1134 of 2025 (Computerized Case
No.D202505470001134), Krishana Kumar Sahani vs. Ramdulare and
Another, under Section 59, (233) (2) (14) U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
expeditiously.
3. From perusal of record it transpires that on 17.04.2025, notices were
issued to the opposite party but nothing has been stated in the entire writ
petition that what order has been passed after the notices issued to the
opposite party.
4. In this view of the matter, relief sought in the present writ petition
could not be granted.
5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
6. However, court concerned is expected to decide the aforesaid case
strictly in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties unless there is no legal impediment.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
March 18, 2026
Swati
Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…