Allowed

Sudama Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2021WRIC/17673/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tehsildar to serve notice on the defendant, decide the mutation case within three months, ensure a hearing for all parties, and avoid unnecessary delays or adjournments, with penalties for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus to execute mutation case within three months with strict adherence to procedure, service of notice, hearing of parties, and imposition of costs for unnecessary adjournments.

Sudama Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17673 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sudama Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kirt Raj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Kirt Raj Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

¶6

The writ petition arises out of proceedings taken out under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by the petitioner which came to be registered as Mutation Case No. 1078 of 2019, Computerized Case No.T201915060601078, Sudama Devi Vs. Upendra, before the learned court below.

¶7

Shri Kirt Raj Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 who is the defendant to the said proceedings has already entered appearance before the learned court below. Attention is called to the order sheet of the learned court below. It is contended that there is no reasonable cause for delay in deciding the aforesaid proceedings. The learned court below has not adhered to the statutory time limit to decide the matter.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities are under statutory obligation to decide the proceedings in the manner and time frame prescribed by law. However, the learned court below have to ascertain that all the parties to the lis have been duly served notices.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

No lis can remain pending indefinitely before a court of law. Prolonged pendency of a lis without good cause may lead to miscarriage of justice.

¶11

The order sheet does not disclose good cause for the inordinate delay in deciding the proceedings. The statutory time for deciding the matter under Rule 34(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 has long expired.

¶12

According to the petitioner, the sole defendant in the lis has entered appearance before the learned court below.

¶13

In the wake of the preceding discussion, interest of justice will be served by remitting the matter to respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh.

¶14

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, DistrictAzamgarh, to execute the following directions:

¶15

(I) The respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall ensure service of notice upon the defendant to the lis and record a finding to this effect before proceeding to hear the matter on merits.

¶16

(II) The respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall decide the Mutation Case No. 1078 of 2019, Computerized Case No.T201915060601078, Sudama Devi Vs. Upendra, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the

¶17

order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

(III) All parties to the lis shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed.

¶19

(IV) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, TehsilBudhanpur, District-Azamgarh.

¶20

(V) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent No.2/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh or adopts dilatory tactics, the respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶21

(VI) The respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh shall give short dates in the said proceedings.

¶22

(VII) The respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶23

(VIII) In case an adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, TehsilBudhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall impose costs not below Rs.500/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶24

(IX) If necessary, the respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, TehsilBudhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated time period to decide the case is strictly adhered to.

¶25

(X) This order is being passed when the threat of Covid-19 pandemic still exists. In case the court proceedings are held up due to Covid-19 outbreak, the lost working days shall be adjusted and the above stipulated time period shall accordingly be enhanced.

¶26

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶27

Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Dhananjai

Sudama Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

S.S.D. College of Higher Education and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Lali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sukhpal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt.Sonmati Devi Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Bijendra @ Bijendra Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sundarkant Pandey and Another