Babu Lal Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the following
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (a). The court/ authority concerned where the aforesaid matter is pending, is directed to finally decide the same on its own merits, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties within a…
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
By means of the present petition, prayer for expeditious and time bound disposal of Case No. 1012 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202205310301012) (Babu Lal Vs. Dubar) under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been made.
Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2024 (3) ADJ 295 (SC) has observed that no direction to dispose of cases in a time bound manner be issued by the Constitutional Courts, except in exceptional circumstances. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:- "37. ...... a. ....... b. ....... c. Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending; and"
Considering the material placed before this Court along with this petition, direction for expeditious disposal can be issued in the (emphasis supplied)" peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Operative part
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (a). The court/ authority concerned where the aforesaid matter is pending, is directed to finally decide the same on its own merits, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties within a period of four months from the date a certified/self attested copy of this order is produced before it; (b). In case, the lawyers remain on strike, which has successively been held to be unconstitutional and illegal by the Apex Court in the cases of Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another, AIR, 2003 SC 736; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409; Krishnakant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2018 (17) SCC 27 and Hussain v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, the period, during which, the lawyers abstain themselves from work, shall remain excluded from the period fixed by this Court for disposal of the aforesaid matter; (c). Since the petitioner side has come up for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid matter, in case, any adjournment is sought by the petitioner side before the court/ authority concerned, the benefit conferred under this order shall stand automatically discharged and vacated and the court/ authority concerned would not be obliged to decide the lis within the time frame fixed by this Court; (d). It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated or commented upon merits of the aforesaid matter and it is for the court concerned to decide the same strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and on its own merits and maintainability etc., after providing full opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties; (e). The petitioner(s) are directed to serve a photostat copy of this order on the learned counsel representing the contesting party(ies) appearing before the court/authority concerned prior to filing of certified/self attested copy of this order before the court/authority concerned. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Sazia SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the following
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 24 Apr 2025. The bench was KSHITI.
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.