Allowed

Alok v. Naib Tehsildar and Another

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2019WRIC/28577/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition, directed the Naib Tehsildar to decide a long-pending mutation application under the U.P. Revenue Code within six weeks. The Court held that summary proceedings must be decided expeditively and cannot be stalled merely due to Bar strikes or casual adjournments, while reserving the merits for the revenue authority.

What did the court decide?

Ordered the Naib Tehsildar to decide Case No. 540 within six weeks after hearing parties.

Alok Vs Naib Tehsildar and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28577 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Alok Respondent :- Naib Tehsildar And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyan Prakash Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following material relief and no other:

¶6

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no.1, i.e. Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District Azamgarh, to decide the Suit No.540 (Alok Vs. Ram Bahadur), under Section 35 Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, pending before him, within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." When the case is called on, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner as the Members of the Bar have abstained from judicial work. Sri Aditya Kesari, learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of respondent No.1. The Court has gone through the records with the assistance of the learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

A perusal of the writ petition and the record shows that the petitioner has filed an application for mutation on the basis of succession under Section 35 U.P. Land Revenue Act on 03.04.2017. An objection to this application has been filed by respondent No.2, who appears to be the contesting opposite party. The grievance of the petitioner, as appears from paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9 is that the Naib Tehsildar, before whom these proceedings are pending, has casually adjourning the case and is dragging his feet instead of proceeding to a decision. A copy of the order-sheet has

¶8

been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, a perusal of which shows that the case was registered on 03.04.2017 before the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District Azamgarh, as Case No.540 (Alok Vs.Ram Bahadur, relating to Village Madanpatti, Pargana Kaudiya, Tehsil Budhanpur, District Azamgarh. Notice of the case was ordered to be published vide order dated 08.05.2017 and on 16.05.2017, it appears that the contesting opposite party appeared. Thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing on 06.07.2017. On and after 06.07.2017, the case has been adjourned eventlessly. On most of the dates, the case has been adjourned on account of Members of the Bar being on strike. The applications under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code are summary proceedings, which are required to be decided expeditiously as they not only affect the rights of parties, but are primarily concerned with revenue of the State.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances and the manner in which the case has been adjourned on every possible dates, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to expedite the proceedings. This Court makes it clear that by this order, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the parties case, which shall be in the exclusive province of the Naib Tehsildar or the Tehsildar, as the case may be, who shall determine the application in accordance with law. However, this Court is equally clear that proceedings for mutation instituted way back in the year 2017, cannot be kept pending endlessly in the manner the Naib Tehsildar is adjourning. Even if members of the Bar are on strike, the Naib Tehsildar may

¶10

take resort to such steps as may be permissible in law, but will not adjourn the proceedings on that account.

¶11

Looking to the order that this Court proposes to pass, no notice is being issued to respondent No.2, as rights of the parties are not being decided in this case here. However, the second respondent, in case he feels aggrieved by this order, may make an application in this decided petition.

¶12

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District Azamgarh, is ordered to decide Case No.540 (Alok Vs.Ram Bahadur), under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, relating to Village Madanpatti, Pargana Kaudiya, Tehsil Budhanpur, District Azamgarh, within a period of six weeks positively from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after hearing the parties concerned and in accordance with law.

¶13

This writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid orders.

¶14

There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.9.2019 NSC

Alok v. Naib Tehsildar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok v. Naib Tehsildar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Mohan Vs Board of Revenue U.P. and 6 Others

Ram Pratap Singh Alias Bhagwat Singh Vs Board of Revenue U.P. and 9 Others

Ram Nihore and Others Vs Ajayab Lal

Surya Bali and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Om Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Reena Rai Vs Tehsildar Khajani and 4 Others