Ishloka Devi vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others

Alok Mathur, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondents are hereby dispensed with.

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide Case No. 676 of 2011 (Smt. Ishloka Devi Vs. Brajraj) U/s 34 Land Revenue Act expeditiously.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petition would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 3 considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits, respondent no. 2- Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil - Kaptanganj, District - Kushinagar is directed to decide Case No. 676 of 2011 (Smt. Ishloka Devi Vs. Brajraj) U/s 34 Land Revenue Act, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

It is further directed that the parties to the case shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Court concerned, except in exceptional circumstances.

With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.