Petitioner sought writ of mandamus for delayed decision in a mutation case involving property rights. Court directed respondent Tehsildar to decide case within three months.
Directions to respondent-4 to decide mutation case within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29314 of 2021
Petitioner :- Geeta Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shweta Pandey,Punita Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Miss. Shweta Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents-1,2,3 and 4.
Petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-4 Tehsildar, (Judicial) Ballia to decide Case No. 1514/T201915090301109, (Geeta Devi Vs. Kusum Rajbhar) under section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Record shows that respondent-5 executed a registered sale-deed in favour of petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid, sale deed, petitioner applied for mutation vide application dated 4.2.2019. Same was registered as Case No. 1514/T201915090301109, (Geeta Devi Vs. Kusum Rajbhar) under section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that inspite of fact that a period of more than one year and eight months have rolled by from the date of filing of application dated 4.2.2019, above mentioned mutation case has not been decide till date. She further submits that delay in disposal of aforementioned case is not attributable to petitioner. It is also submitted that non disposal of above mentioned case even after expiry of period of one year cannot be said to be justified in any manner. Learned counsel for petitioner has then invited attention of Court to Rule 34 (7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 and on basis thereof she contends that respondent-4 was under a statutory obligation to decide above mentioned mutation case within the time period prescribed under the statute. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-4 to decide above mentioned mutation case within the time period stipulated by this Court. Consequently mandamus as prayed for by petitioner is liable to be issued by this Court.
Having heard Miss. Shweta Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents-1,2,3 and 4. and upon perusal of material brought on record, this court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ
petition pending.
In view of above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent-4 Tehsildar, (Judicial) Ballia to decide Case No. 1514/T201915090301109, (Geeta Devi Vs. Kusum Rajbhar), 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 appeal by means of a Notary Affidavit.
Order Date :- 9.11.2021 Arshad
Digitally signed by Justice Rajeev Misra Date: 2021.11.10 09:41:51 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether applicant is entitled to writ of mandamus directing respondent to decide mutation case within prescribed time limit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Geeta Devi
State Of U.P
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
