Thakur Ramjanki Lakhanlal Ji Virajman Mandir v. Addl. District Magistrate Finance And Revenue
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the sole
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the sole respondent, namely, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance And Revenue), District Unnao, to consider and decide the restoration application of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of…
Judgment
Heard Shri Yogesh Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayer :- "(i) Issue direction to Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, District Unnao for decide the Restoration Application of the petitioner in Case No.D202110690008358, "State Vs. Raghuvansh Dulari", U/S 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, as soon as possible at an early date, which is pending since 10.04.2023."
It is the case of the petitioner that an order dated 31.03.1986 was passed under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1960"), against which Writ Petition No.5821 of 1986 (Ceiling) was filed challenging the said order. In the said writ petition, an interim order was granted, and subsequently, the writ petition was finally decided vide judgment and order dated 11.08.2009, whereby the order dated 31.03.1986 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the prescribed authority for fresh decision.
Pursuant to the remand order dated 11.08.2009, the prescribed authority commenced rehearing of the matter. Ultimately, vide ex-parte order dated 2 A227 No. 7546 of 2025
28.03.2023, Case No.70/135 (State of U.P. vs. Smt. Rani Raghubansh Dulari) was decided and the earlier order dated 31.03.1986 was restored. A perusal of the order dated 28.03.2023 reveals that the same was passed on the ground that no one had been appearing on behalf of the respondent for several years. Consequently, the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), District Unnao/Prescribed Authority decided the Case No.8358 of 2021, under Section 10(2) of Act, 1960 on the basis of the documents available on record.
Thereafter, a restoration application was filed by the petitioner on
10.04.2023, which is still pending consideration.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the sole respondent, namely, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance And Revenue), District Unnao, to consider and decide the restoration application of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. January 19, 2026 Shubhankar (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the sole
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Land Holdings Act, 1960.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.