Allowed

Ravishankar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2021WRIC/28197/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Tehsildar to decide a pending restoration application filed in a mutation case within three months, citing an inordinate delay and statutory obligations under the U.P. Revenue Code Rules.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondent Tehsildar to decide the restoration application within three months of producing a certified copy of the order.

Ravishankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28197 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravishankar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shachindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sachindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel representing respondents 1 and 2.

¶6

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2-Tehsildar, Tehsil-Bara, District Allahabad to decide the restoration application filed by respondent no. 3- Ram Bahadur Patel in Case No. 02186 of 2020, under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 now pending in Court of respondent no. 2- Tehsildar, Tehsil-Bara, District Allahabad.

¶7

Record shows that petitioner filed an application under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006. Same was registered as Case No. 02186/2020 (Ravi Shankar Vs. Ram Bahadur Patel). Aforesaid case came to be allowed vide order dated 9.9.2020. Subsequently, respondent no. 3-Ram Bahadur Patel filed a restoration application dated 13.10.2020, upon which respondent no. 2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Bara, District Allahabad has passed an order dated 1.2.2021, whereby earlier order dated 9.9.2020 has been stayed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a period of more than eight months have rolled by from the date of order dated 1.2.2021. However, the restoration application filed by respondent no. 3 in aforesaid mutation case has not been

¶9

decided as yet. He has then invited attention of Court to Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 and on basis thereof he contends that respondent no. 2-Tehdsildar, Tehsil Bara, DistrictAllahabad is under a statutory obligation to decide abovementioned restoration application under the period prescribed under the statute. As such, non disposal of restoration application even after expiry of the period prescribed under the rules cannot be said to be justified in any manner.

¶10

On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-2 to decide the restoration application filed by the respondent no. 3-Ram Bahadur Patel, within the time period stipulated by this Court. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for by petitioner is liable to be issued by this Court.

¶11

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.

¶12

In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent-2, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Bara, District Allahabad to decide afore-mentioned restoration application, 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 mutation case by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶13

Order Date :- 2.11.2021 Shafique

Ravishankar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravishankar 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

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

Balwant Singh Vs State of U.P. and 21 Others

Chandra Kant Vs State of U.P. and 14 Others

Mahendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others