Allowed

Sant Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2021WRIC/26540/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondent Nayab Tehsildar to decide Mutation Case No. 424 of 2015 within three months under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006.

What did the court decide?

The court directed the respondent to decide Mutation Case No. 424 of 2015 within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

Sant Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26540 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sant Lal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramkripal Yadav,Muktesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ramkripal Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel representing respondents 1 and 2.

¶7

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent-2 Nayab Tehsildar Meja Prayagaraj to decide Mutation Case No. 424 of 2015 under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, within a stipulated period fixed by this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that above mentioned mutation case was filed in the year 2015 and inspite of the fact that a period of more than 5 years has expired, above mentioned case has not been decided till date.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner then invited attention of Court to Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and on basis thereof, he contends that respondent-2 was under a legal obligation to decide above noted proceeding within the time period prescribed under the Rules. He also submits that delay in disposal of above mentioned mutation case cannot be attributed to petitioner. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-2 to decide above mentioned case within the time period stipulated by this Court. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for is liable to be issued by this Court.

¶10

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

¶11

In view of above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent-2 Nayab Tehsildar Meja Prayagaraj to decide Mutation Case No. 424 of 2015 under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, with all expidition without granting any unnecessary adjourment to either of the parties and preferably

¶12

within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy/computer generated copy of this order, which shall be filed by petitioner in above mentioned mutation case by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.11.2021 Arshad

Sant Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Jang Bahadur Vs Sub Divisional Officer and 5 Others

Bhujbal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 4 Others

Pradeep and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Premvati Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Arvind Rai Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Kaushari Begum Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others