BIKAU AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS — WRIB/231/2026

Disposed: -- on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 22-Jan-2026

CNR: UPHC010300482026

Filing Number

WRIB/

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

WRIB/231/2026

Registration Date

17-Jan-2026

Judge

Dinesh Pathak

Coram

Dinesh Pathak

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ( 100100 )

Sub-Category

Miscellaneous ( 90 )

Judicial Branch

Civil WRITS

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BIKAU AND ANOTHER

    Adv. VINAY KUMAR MISHRA,ROOP SHANDILYA,ROOP SHANDILYA, ,ROOP SHANDILYA

  2. 2.KHADERU

    Adv. ROOP SHANDILYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

    Adv. ,C.S.C. 1123

  2. 2.SETTLEMENT OFFICER OF CONSOLIDATION

    Adv. C.S.C.

  3. 3.SONA DEVI

    Adv. C.S.C.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    Dinesh PathakView PDF

    The High Court of Allahabad disposed of a writ petition filed by Bikau and another seeking mandamus to compel the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Padrauna to decide a pending appeal (Appeal No. 1498) under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The court directed the Settlement Officer to decide the case strictly in accordance with law through a reasoned order after hearing both parties, without unnecessary adjournments, preferably within five months, without commenting on case merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    —

    Dinesh Pathak

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 22-Jan-2026

    Dinesh PathakView PDF

  6. 16-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WRIB/231/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Allahabad disposed of a writ petition filed by Bikau and another seeking mandamus to compel the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Padrauna to decide a pending appeal (Appeal No. 1498) under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The court directed the Settlement Officer to decide the case strictly in accordance with law through a reasoned order after hearing both parties, without unnecessary adjournments, preferably within five months, without commenting on case merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case