Disposed

Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2021WRIC/19156/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition filed against non-decision of a revenue case by the revenue officer. The court directed the respondent to decide the case within three months without unnecessary adjournments and without granting any period for the petitioner to file a copy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tehsildar to decide the pending revenue case within three months from the date of filing the certified copy of this order by the petitioner, without unnecessary adjournments.

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19156 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Maya Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manisha Singh,Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing counsel representing respondents-1 & 2 and Mr. Manoj Yadav, Advocate, representing respondent-3.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-2, Tehsildar Tehsil-Resra, District-Ballia to decide Case No. 741 of 2020 (Computer Case No. T202015090403647) (Maya Devi Vs. Niyamat Ali and others) under Section 35 U.P. Revenue Code 2006, within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶8

Present writ petition came up for admission on 13.08.2021 and this Court passed following order:-

¶9

"Issue notice to the private respondent No.3 by RPAD as well as by regular process, returnable within a period of eight weeks. Steps to be taken within a period of two weeks.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter including:

¶11

I. Service of notices upon all the private respondent No.3 in the proceedings before the court below.

¶12

II. Mode and proof of service of notice.

¶13

III. Whether the private respondent No.3 have entered appearance before the court below.

¶14

IV. Photostat copy of the ordersheet.

¶15

V. Reasons for failure to decide the proceedings within the stipulated statutory period.

¶16

Put up this case on 25.10.2021 in the list of fresh cases."

¶17

Pursuant to order dated 13.08.2021, learned Standing Counsel has received instructions. Same have been placed before Court and are taken on record.

¶18

6.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that aforesaid proceedings came into existence in the year 2020. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than one year has rolled by from the date of filing of above mentioned case, same has not been decided till date.

¶19

He next invited attention of Court to Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and on basis thereof, he contends that by virtue of aforesaid, respondent-2, Tehsildar TehsilResra, District-Ballia was under a legal obligation to decide aforementioned case within the time period provided in aforesaid Rules. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for by petitioner is liable to be issued.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 and 2, Mr. Manoj Yadav, learned counsel representing respondent-3 and upon perusal of material brought on record, this court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶21

In view of above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent-2, Tehsildar Tehsil-Resra, DistrictBallia to decide Case No. 741 of 2020 (Computer Case No. T202015090403647) (Maya Devi Vs. Niyamat Ali and others) under Section 35 U.P. Land Revenue Act 2006, with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified

¶22

copy/computer generated copy of this order, which shall be filed by petitioner in above mentioned case by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶23

Order Date :- 28.10.2021 YK

Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Priyanka Singh and 4 Others Vs Smt. Umapati and 19 Others

Afzal Ali Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Pashupati and 3 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Swaminath Gajadharprasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Akabari Bano Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Babu Ram Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others