Disposed

Ram Bhawan Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2021WRIC/29848/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Tehsildar to decide a pending mutation case within a stipulated period, citing delays beyond the statutory timeframe under the U.P. Revenue Code Rules.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tehsildar to decide Case No. 2269 of 2020 within three months from the date of receipt of the order via Notary Affidavit.

Ram Bhawan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29848 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Bhawan Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mool Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J

¶5

Heard Mr. Mool Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel representing respondents-1, 2 and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent-3.

¶6

By means of this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent-2 Tehsildar, Tehsil Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi to decide Case No. 2269 of 2020 (Ram Bhawan Pal Vs. Jiviteshwar Kamlesh Anagh) under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, within a stipulated period fixed by this Court.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner filed above mentioned mutation case on basis of registered sale deed dated 5.6.2020 executed by respondent 4 in his favour. However, in spite of fact that a period of more one year has rolled by from the date of filing of above mentioned mutation case, same has not yet been decided. Non disposal of same even after expiry of aforesaid period cannot be said to be justified in any manner.

¶8

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 submits that respondent-2 was under a legal obligation to decide aforesaid mutation case filed by petitioner within a period of 90 days as provided in aforesaid Rule itself. However, in spite of aforesaid, respondent 1 has failed to decide the aforementioned case within the period provided under the Rules. In addition to above, it is also urged that delay in disposal of the mutation case filed by petitioner is not attributable to petitioner himself. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for petitioner contends that interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-2 to decide aforementioned mutation case within a time period fixed by this Court. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for by petitioner is liable to be issued by this Court.

¶9

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no

¶10

objection in case the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent-2 to decide the mutation case filed by petitioner within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶11

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

¶12

In view of above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent-2 Tehsildar, Tehsil Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi to decide Case No. 2269 of 2020 (Ram Bhawan Pal Vs. Jiviteshwar Kamlesh Anagh), 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 pending before respondent-2 by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶13

Order Date :- 15.11.2021

¶14

Arshad

Ram Bhawan Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bhawan Pal 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

Anchal Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lalji Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Hari Lal Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Ram Shabd Vs State of U P and Another

Virendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others