Disposed

Shakuntala Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2021WRIC/27264/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandate under Article 226 to direct a Tehsildar to decide a pending revenue mutation case. The Court noted a delay of over seven years and issued a specific direction for disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-2 (Tehsildar, Sahjanwa) to decide the pending case within three months without unnecessary adjournments.

Shakuntala Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27264 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Shakuntala Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Chandra Prakash Misra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel representing respondents 1 and 2.

¶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 (Judicial), Tehsil-Sahjanwa, DistrictGorakhpur to decide Case No.00507 of 2021 (Shankuntala Vs. Saureba) under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 arising out of an application for mutation of name of petitioner in revenue records, which has been filed by petitioner in the year 2014, within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that afore-mentioned case was filed by petitioner in the year 2014. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than seven years has rolled by from the date of filing of above mentioned case, same 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 further submits that delay in disposal of above mentioned 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 fixed by this Court.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1, 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

¶12

a direction to, respondent-2, Tehsildar (Judicial), TehsilSahjanwa, District-Gorakhpur to decide afore-mentioned case, 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 copy/computer generated copy of this order, which shall be filed by petitioner in above mentioned case by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.10.2021 YK

Shakuntala Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Singh 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

Zerman Singh (Deceased) and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Bahadur Singh Neelam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Komal Singh Vs the Commissioner Agra and 6 Others

Sangeeta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others