Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15174 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sadanand Respondent :- Amardev And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Faizur Rahman
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Faizur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice need not go to respondent no.1.
Petitioner before this Court seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 (Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh) to expedite and conclude the proceeding of Revision No. 86/A of 2014 (Amardev vs. Sadanand & Others) within stipulated period as may be fixed by the Court.
The record in question reflects that petitioner filed an application under Section 29/41 of the Land Revenue Act for demarcation of Arazi No. 59 measuring area .509 hectare situated at Mauja Haraiya Tapa Ataisi, Paragana Nijamabad, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh. The said application was registered as Case No. 114, Computerized Case No. T20131563392. It is further reflected that after following due procedure known to law, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sadar, Azamgarh allowd the application of the petitioner vide order dated 3rd April, 2014. The said order has been assailed by the contesting respondent Amardev before the Commissioner by way of Revision No. 86/A of 2014 along with stay application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the said proceedings of revision, petitioner has already filed objection on 26th April, 2017 and for the reasons best known to the respondents, the proceedings of revision have yet not been concluded, because of which petitioner is suffering irreparable loss and injury.
Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel states that in case the aforesaid revision is directed to be decided expeditiously, he has no objection.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the aforesaid and with the consent, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction upon respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the aforesaid revision in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost of Rs. 200/-.
(M. C. Tripathi, J.) Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Sushil/-