Remanded

Devi Shankar Shukla and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 19 Others

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2022WRIC/16897/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Sub Divisional Officer to decide a pending mutation case under the U.P. Revenue Code within three months, ensuring parties are heard and adjournments are minimized. The court also deleted a previous observation questioning the officer's fitness after accepting an apology, ordering restoration of status quo.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub Divisional Officer to decide Mutation Case No. 341 of 2017 within three months. Status quo maintained. Observation regarding officer's fitness deleted.

Devi Shankar Shukla and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 19… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16897 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Devi Shankar Shukla And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 19 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Giri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to delete the names of respondent Nos.7 & 12 from array of the parties during the course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K.R. Singh,learned Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri R.V. Mishra, learned counsel for private respondent Nos.3 to 6.

¶6

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer:-

¶7

"(I) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09-05-2022 passed by respondent no.2 in partition suit no. 341 of 2017 (Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Pramod Kumar and others) before respondent no.2 Under Section 176 U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act(Now presently section 116 U.P. Revenue Code-2006)."

¶8

Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the father of the petitioners filed a partition suit being Suit No.341 of 2017 under Section 116 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006. In the aforesaid suit, application for interim relief was also filed in which the respondent No.2 granted an order of status quo on 13.06.2017 which was extended from time to time. An order of preliminary decree was also passed by the respondent No.2 on 30.01.2018 in the aforesaid suit.

¶9

The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondents before the Board of Revenue being REV/3280/2018/Prayagraj (Computer Case No.AL2018020300328) (Badrinath Vs. Rameshwar Prasad) which was decided 07.08.2019. Since the aforesaid suit has not been decided, a writ petition was filed by the father of the petitioners being Writ C No.18637 of 2019 (Rameshwar Prasad Vs. State Of U.P. And 19 Others) before this Court which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 28.05.2019. The aforesaid order is

¶10

reproduced below:-

¶11

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.

¶12

The petition has been filed seeking the following relief-

¶13

"I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the pending Suit No.341 of 2017, under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Allahabad within stipulated time period, without granting any unnecessary adjournment."

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that the suit for partition filed in the year 2017 is pending consideration at the stage of preparation of the final decree. Hence, this writ petition seeking directions for expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶15

Under the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Allahabad to endeavour to decide the partition suit of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him."

¶16

In spite of the directions given by this Court on 28.05.2019, no final decision has been taken in the matter by the respondent No.2 till date. Since the order of status quo which was granted in favour of the petitioners on 13.06.2017 was going to expire, the petitioners filed an application for extension of stay order dated 13.06.2017 on 04.05.2022 but the respondent No.2 cancel the stay order by its order dated 09.05.2022 without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Aggrieved against the order dated 09.05.2022, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition. The present writ petition was duly entertained and interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioners by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.06.2022. Pursuant to the order dated 13.06.2022, a personal affidavit of respondent No.2/Ambrish Kumar Bind, Sub Divisional Officer has been filed, the same is taken on record.

¶17

It is stated in paragraph 7 of the aforesaid affidavit that since the file of the aforesaid case was very bulki and the matter is pending consideration before respondent No.2 for last more than five years and a direction has also been issued by this Court on 28.05.2019 in Writ C No.18637 of 2019 to decide the matter within four months, therefore, he does not think proper to extend the interim order. Apart from this, unconditional apology has also been sought for

¶18

by him for the order which has been passed him on 09.05.2022 on the application for extension of interim order. In paragraph 8 of the aforesaid affidavit, a prayer has been made to withdrawn the observation made by this Court in its order dated 13.06.2022. The observation made by this Court in its order dated 13.06.2022 is reproduced below:-

¶19

"This Court is inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that and prima facie finds the S.D.O. concerned not fit to do judicial work."

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

The power to mutate on the basis of succession flows from under Section 33 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and is to be exercised in the manner prescribed by Section 35. It is further guided by Rule 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code Rules, 2016. Reference may also be made to sub Rule (7) of Rule 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 which reads as under:

¶22

"Rule 34. Issue of Proclamation [Section 35(1)]. (1) x x x x

(2) x x x x

(3) x x x x

(4) x x x x

(5) x x x x

(6) x x x x

(7) The Tahsildar shall make an endeavour to decide the undisputed case of mutation within the period of 45 days from the date of the registration of the case and the disputed case of mutation within the period of 90 days and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reason for the same shall be recorded.

¶29

(8) x x x x"

¶30

The aforesaid Rule would show that even a contested mutation case is required to be decided within a period of 90 days. If for some reason it cannot be disposed within 90 days, reasons therefor have to be recorded. The order-sheet in this case shows that nothing of the kind has been done, and for more than four years and a half, the case is being adjourned without a hearing.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the record through the order sheet from 13.07.2017 to 18.05.2022. A perusal of the same shows that the case is being casually adjourned without any order of moment being passed. Either

¶32

general dates have been fixed or the case adjourned on account of Presiding Officer being pre-occupied with administrative work or members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work. Mutation proceedings are inherently urgent as these affect not only parties but also revenues of the State. Moreover, there is a legislative mandate to dispose of these proceedings within a limited period of time.

¶33

Since private respondents have duly represented by Sri R.V. Mishra, Advocate and he has no objection, if the case has been decided within time bound period. Under the circumstances the respondent No.2/Sub Divisonal Officer, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj is ordered to decide mutation Case no. 341 of 2017 filed under Section 116, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2006 within three months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law after hearing all parties concerned.Till then the parties are directed to maintain status quo.

¶34

It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted and if adjournment at all has to be granted, it shall not exceed a period of one or two days. The mutation case shall be decided strictly in regard to the schedule of time indicated hereinabove.

¶35

Insofar as the observations made by this Court in its order dated 13.06.2022 is concerned which is quoted above, learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection if the above quoted observations made by this court would be deleted. Since Ambrish Kumar Bind, Sub Divisional Officer has made an unconditional apology, the explanation given by him is found satisfactory and considering his young age and long tenure of service, this Court is of the opinion that if such a harsh observation will remain, the same shall impact his entire carrier and future, therefore, this Court took a lenient view, the observation made against him which is quoted above be deleted.

¶36

Order Date :- 17.8.2022/saqlain

¶37

Digitally signed by SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER Date: 2022.08.25 14:10:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devi Shankar Shukla and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 19 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Shankar Shukla and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 19 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

Suryabhan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Indra Bahadur Singh Vs Sanjiv Kumar Rai Zila Sahayak Nibandhak

Chetram Dattak Vs Rakesh Shankar S.P. Jalaun and Another

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

Ram Narain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Haribansh Singh Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others