Disposed

Kiran Devi v. Tehsildar and Another

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2021WRIC/28817/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226, the High Court directed the Tehsildar of Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar, to decide a pending revenue case within three months from the date of filing a certified copy of the order, citing a delay exceeding one year.

What did the court decide?

A direction that the respondent decide the referenced case within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

Kiran Devi Vs Tehsildar and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28817 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Kiran Devi Respondent :- Tehsildar And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghavendra Sharan Tiwari,Yogesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. R.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent- 1.

¶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-1, Tehsildar, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar to decide Case No.02639 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. T2020054402022639) (Kiran Devi Vs. Kanta) under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 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 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.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner next invited attention of Court to Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and on basis thereof, he contends that respondent-1 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-1 to decide above mentioned case within the time period fixed by this Court. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for by petitioner is liable to be issued by this Court.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent-1 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-1, Tehsildar, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar 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 :- 2.11.2021 Saif

Kiran Devi v. Tehsildar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Devi v. Tehsildar and Another

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