Disposed

Sursati Devi v. Tehsildar,Teh.Beekapur Distt.Ayodhya and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2022/283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Tehsildar to dispose of a mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within seven months. The order conditioned this direction on the petitioner filing an undertaking to appear for hearings even if the local bar is on strike, noting that strikes were the cause of the delayed disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose of mutation case pending since 2018 within seven months; petitioner directed to file undertaking to appear even if bar is on strike.

Sursati Devi Vs Tehsildar,Teh.Beekapur… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 31

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 283 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sursati Devi Respondent :- Tehsildar,Teh.Beekapur Distt.Ayodhya And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sonal Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Sonal Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and perused the record.

¶6

By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has requested to issue an order or direction to opposite party no.1 i.e. Tehsildar, Tehsil Beekapur, District Faizabad, now Ayodhya to decide the Mutation Case No. 00662 of 2018, computerized case no. T- 201804230300662 (Sursati vs. Ram Surat), filed under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 relating to property Gata Nos. 277, 254, 320, situated at Village Gandai, Pargana Paschim Rath, expeditiously, within stipulated period of time fixed by this Court in accordance with law.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the abovementioned case is pending for disposal before respondent no.1 since 2018 and no substantial progress has been made therein and, therefore, a suitable direction be given to the respondent no.1 to dispose of the above-mentioned case, expeditiously within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶8

Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that he is not having any objection if any direction for expeditious disposal of the case is passed by this Court, but has drawn the attention of this Court on the extract of order-sheet placed on record, Perusal of which shows that on all the dates fixed in the above-mentioned case the members of the local Bar were on strike.

¶9

He further submits that in the background of the fact that the members of the local Bar were on strike, there was no opportunity for the presiding officer to have disposed of the case expeditiously and, therefore, if any direction for expeditious disposal of the case is to be passed, the petitioner would also be commanded to execute an undertaking before the trial court with regard to co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the case even if the members of the local Bar are on strike.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired from the record that on almost all the dates when the above-mentioned case has been listed before the opposite party no.1, the members of the local Bar were on strike and for this reason no progress has been made in the above-mentioned case.

¶11

Having regard to the order intended to be passed by this Court, the service of notice on opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶12

This Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the instant petition pending and the same is disposed of with the direction to the opposite party no.1 i.e. Tehsildar, Tehsil Beekapur, District Faizabad, now Ayodhya to make all out efforts to dispose of the above-mentioned case pending in his Court within a period of seven months from the date of an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned, strictly in accordance with law, subject to cooperation of the parties, after providing an opportunity of being heard and to led evidence to all the parties.

¶13

It is further provided that since a direction for expeditious disposal of the above-mentioned case is being issued, on the request of the petitioner, the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the opposite party no.1 stating therein that she will remain present before the concerned court on all dates fixed for the purpose of co-operating in the expeditious disposal of the case and would be available for the purpose of conduct of the case even if the members of the local Bar would be on strike.

¶14

It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case.

¶15

In view of the recent surge in Covid-19 cases and having regard to the fact that the Court is working virtually, it is directed that the parties may file a computer generated copy of this order, which may be downloaded from the official website of this Court, after self attesting it by learned counsel for the parties before the authority concerned. The concerned court/authority/official shall be further under duty to verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order so filed by the parties from the official website of this Court and shall make a declaration that the same is verified.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.2.2022 Praveen

¶17

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.02.08 17:46:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sursati Devi v. Tehsildar,Teh.Beekapur Distt.Ayodhya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sursati Devi v. Tehsildar,Teh.Beekapur Distt.Ayodhya 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

Dinesh Vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial ) Ayodhya Mandal and 4 Others

Ajimullah Vs Additional Commissioner Consolidation Lko. and Others

Subedar and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,Gonda and Others

Shahjahan Bano Vs Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Sadar,Gonda and Another

Vikas Soni Vs State of U.P.Thru.Addl. Chief Secy Revenue Lko and Others

Pagga Vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial-Ii Lko and Others