Disposed

Shakuntala Yadav v. Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022/305/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 directed the Tehsildar to decide a pending mutation case within eight months, despite local bar strikes, and required the petitioner to file an undertaking to appear on all dates.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tehsildar to decide the pending mutation case expeditiously within eight months from the date of receiving an authenticated copy of this order.

Shakuntala Yadav Vs Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 31

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 305 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Shakuntala Yadav Respondent :- Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Ambedkar Nagar And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Om Prakash Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Rajeev Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and perused the record.

¶6

By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has requested to direct the opposite party no.1 i.e. Tehsildar, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar to decide the case bearing Case No. T- 202004040402255 (Shakuntala vs. Ram Payare), under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 relating to Village Masena Mirzapur, Pargana Bidhar, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar, 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 pertaining to the mutation is pending for disposal before the opposite party no.1 since long and no substantial progress has been made therein and, therefore, a suitable direction be given to the opposite party no.1 to dispose of the above-mentioned case expeditiously within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel however submits that he is not having any objection so far as the prayer for expeditious disposal of the case is concerned, but the perusal of the order sheet which has been enclosed with the petition would reveal that almost on all dates fixed before the opposite party no.1 in the above-mentioned case, the members of the local bar association were on strike and it was only on account of this, no substantial progress has been made in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Perusal of the record would fortify the apprehension of learned Standing Counsel as the order sheet enclosed with the petition would reveal that on almost all the dates whereon this case was listed, the members of the local bar association were on strike.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

¶11

perused the record, in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the instant petition pending and having regard to the order intended to be passed by this Court, the service of notice on private respondents/opposite party no. 2 and 3 is hereby dispensed with on the ground that any order/direction pertaining to the expeditious disposal of the case pending before the respondent no.1 would also be in their interest.

¶12

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.1 i.e. Tehsildar, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar to consider and finally decide the above-mentioned case expeditiously within a period of eight 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 led evidence to all the parties.

¶13

Since the order for expeditious disposal of the case is being passed on the request of the petitioner, who is the applicant before the court below, it is provided that petitioner shall file an undertaking before the opposite party no.1 pertaining to the fact that he would remain present before the court below on all the dates fixed and would do all necessary for the early disposal of the case even in the event of the local bar association is on strike.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 10.2.2022 Praveen

¶16

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.02.11 09:58:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shakuntala Yadav v. Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Yadav v. Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Ambedkar Nagar and 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

Sanjay Singh Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Haidergarh,Barabanki and Others

Rajkumari Vs Sub District Magistrate Amethi Tehsil Amethi and Others

Akhilesh Kumar Bajapai Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri and 29 Others

Shiv Kumar Pandey and Another Vs State U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Gonda and Others

Smt. Sehrul Nisa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko and Others

Jagdev Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Revenue Dept. Lko and Others