Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1866 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vinay Pal Singh And 6 Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- Manoj Pathak
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing counsel representing respondent-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioners have filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-1, Board of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj (Allahabad) to decide Second Appeal No. 04 of 2009-10 (Vinay Pal and others Vs. Ompal and others), within the time period fixed by this Court.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that above-mentioned second appeal arises out of a partition suit filed under Section 176 U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. It is then submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that above-mentioned second appeal is pending before Board of Revenue, U.P. Prayagraj (Allahabad) since 2009-10. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 11 years has rolled by from the date of filing of above mentioned second appeal, same has not been decided till date.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners then invited attention of Court to the order sheet of above-mentioned second appeal and on basis thereof, he submits that delay in disposal of above- mentioned second appeal cannot be attributed to petitioners. He further contends that non-disposal of aforesaid second appeal even after expiry of 11 years cannot be justified in any manner. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for petitioners submits that interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-1, Board of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj (Allahabad) to decide afore-mentioned second appeal, within a time bound period. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for by petitioner is liable to be issued by this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent-1 and upon perusal of material brought on record, this court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ petition pending.
7. In view of above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent-1, Board of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj (Allahabad) to decide Second Appeal No. 04 of 2009-10 (Vinay Pal and others Vs. Ompal and others), with all expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy/computer generated copy of this order, which shall be filed by petitioners in above mentioned second appeal by means of a Notary Affidavit.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 YK