SHYAM NARAYAN vs STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS — WRIB/3381/2025
Disposed: -- on 19th March 2026.
CNR: UPHC014374672025
Filing Number
WRIB/
Filing Date
21-Aug-2025
Registration No
WRIB/3381/2025
Registration Date
23-Aug-2025
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 02-Jul-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHYAM NARAYAN
Adv. SANJAY KUMAR RAI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
Adv. ,C.S.C. 1123
-
2.SETTLEMENT OFFICER OF CONSOLIDATION
Adv. C.S.C.
-
3.SMT. RITA
Adv. C.S.C.
-
4.RAM ASHRAY
Adv. C.S.C.
-
5.RAM HARAKH
Adv. C.S.C.
-
6.RAM SHABD
Adv. C.S.C.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
19-Mar-2026
Dinesh PathakView PDF
The Allahabad High Court directed the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mau to expeditiously decide pending Case No. 0755 of 2023 under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, within five months. The court issued this mandamus without commenting on case merits after the State's Standing Counsel raised no objection, requiring the officer to pass a reasoned order after affording fair hearing to all parties without unnecessary adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-Mar-2026
—
Dinesh Pathak
-
12-Mar-2026
—
Dinesh Pathak
-
26-Feb-2026
—
Anish Kumar Gupta
-
19-Feb-2026
—
Anish Kumar Gupta
-
12-Feb-2026
As Fresh
Dinesh Pathak
-
16-Jan-2026
Dinesh PathakView PDF
-
07-Jan-2026
—
Chandra Kumar Rai
-
17-Dec-2025
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
25-Sep-2025
Ajay BhanotView PDF
-
25-Sep-2025
—
Ajay Bhanot
-
18-Sep-2025
—
Chandra Kumar Rai
-
11-Sep-2025
—
Chandra Kumar Rai
-
03-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. WRIB/3381/2025
The Allahabad High Court directed the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mau to expeditiously decide pending Case No. 0755 of 2023 under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, within five months. The court issued this mandamus without commenting on case merits after the State's Standing Counsel raised no objection, requiring the officer to pass a reasoned order after affording fair hearing to all parties without unnecessary adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts