Pravesh Mishra vs Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, Ayodhya ...

1. Heard Sri Atul Raj, advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Kumar Maurya, learned State Law Officer who appears for State-respondents. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 3. The solitary relief claimed in the present writ petition is for a writ, order or direction commanding the opposite party no. 1 to decide the Case No. 890/2025 (Pravesh Mishra Vs. Ghanshyam Mishra) Computerized Case no. T202504230100890, under Section 34 of the U. P. Revenue Code 2006 within a stipulated period as this Hon'ble Court may prescribe in the interest of justice. 4. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim. 5. Learned State Law Officer has invited attention of the Court towards page-16 so as to submit that a transfer application has been filed, which is stated to be pending. 6. In the opinion of the Court, in case transfer application has not been decided then the same needs to be decided with most expedition and also the proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is being disposed off with a direction to the opposite party no. 1 to decide the Case No. 890/2025 (Pravesh Mishra Vs. Ghanshyam Mishra) Computerized Case no. T202504230100890, under Section 34 of the U. P. Revenue Code 2006, in accordance with law, expeditiously, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order without granting unnecessary adjournments subject to legal impediment. 8. Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off. (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) May 6, 2026 Atul