Allowed

Ram Awadh v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2021WRIC/8742/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to decide a pending mutation case under Section 34 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a stipulated time. The Court issued a mandamus directing the Naib Tehsilidar to decide the case within 90 days, limit adjournments, record reasons, and impose costs for unnecessary delays.

What did the court decide?

Issued writ in the nature of mandamus to decide the mutation case within 90 days, limit adjournments, record reasons, and impose costs for delays.

Ram Awadh Vs State of U.P. and 7… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8742 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Awadh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing mode.

¶6

Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings were registered as Mutation Case No.00052/2005 (Paras Nath Vs. Khaderu) bearing Computerized Case T- 200517140100052 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The matter is pending since 2005. There is no good cause for inordinate delay in deciding the matter. He calls attention to the ordersheet.

¶7

The only prayer made by Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said case be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel contends that the authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the matter within the period prescribed in the statute.

¶9

In light of the submissions made by the parties at the bar, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending.

¶10

The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2-Naib

¶11

Tehsilidar (Gaur), Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti.

¶12

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.2-Naib Tehsilidar (Gaur), Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti, to execute the following directions:

¶13

(1). All parties to the list shall be noticed and a finding on service of notice shall be recorded within a period of one month from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶14

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the petitioner (party concerned) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The authority/official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶15

(2) The respondent No.2-Naib Tehsilidar (Gaur), Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti, shall decide the Mutation Case No.00052/2005 (Paras Nath Vs. Khaderu) bearing Computerized Case T- 200517140100052 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending before him, preferably, within a period of 90 days from the date of production of a copy of the order as aforesaid.

¶16

(3) All parties to the lis shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed by the respondent No.2-Naib Tehsilidar (Gaur), TehsilHarraiya, District-Basti.

¶17

(4) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the respondent No.2-Naib Tehsilidar (Gaur), Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti.

¶18

(5) The respondent No.2-Naib Tehsilidar (Gaur), Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶19

(6) In case any adjournment is granted in the interest of justice, the reasons for the same shall be recorded by the respondent No.2-Naib Tehsilidar (Gaur), TehsilHarraiya, District-Basti. The respondent No.2-Naib Tehsilidar (Gaur), Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti shall impose costs not below Rs.1000/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking such adjournment.

¶20

(7) If necessary, the respondent No.2-Naib Tehsilidar (Gaur), Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti, shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated time line of 90 days for deciding the case is strictly adhered to.

¶21

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 2.7.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Ram Awadh v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Awadh v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Bireshwar Das Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramdular Verma Vs State of U P and 8 Others

Amar Nath Vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and 3 Others

Smt. Bipti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raghuvas Rai Vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Azamgarh Division and Another

Ram Gulam Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others