Disposed

Amrawati v. Tehsildar Judicaial, Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023/3418/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter under Article 227, the single-judge High Court dispensed with notice to private respondents and passed an order expediting pending mutation proceedings filed by the petitioner in 2020. The court directed the Tehsildar to decide the case within three months without unnecessary adjournments, while reserving the merits for the authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Tehsildar to decide pending mutation proceedings within three months without unnecessary adjournments.

Amrawati Vs Tehsildar Judicaial, Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:44898

¶2

Court No. - 18 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3418 of 2023 Petitioner :- Amrawati Respondent :- Tehsildar Judicaial, Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Heard.

¶5

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents is dispensed with.

¶6

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Case No. 02989 of 2020, Computerized Case No. T202004230302989 (Amrawati and Others Versus Rajesh Kumar), under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No.1-Tehsildar(Judicial), Tehsil Bikapur District Ayodhya, since November 2020.

¶7

It is stated that as per Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 , the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and as such ought to have been decided preferably within 45 days if there is no dispute and if there is dispute, the same ought to have been decided preferably within 90 days. However, the proceedings which were initiated by the petitioner in the year 2020, have not been concluded till date. In these circumstances, the indulgence of this Court is required. The prayer is to expedite the said pending proceedings.

¶8

It is further submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided.

¶9

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.-1 to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Case No. 02989 of 2020, Computerized Case No. T202004230302989 (Amrawati and Others Versus Rajesh Kumar), most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶11

The petitioner would also file an undertaking before the authority concerned, indicating therein that he would not take any adjournment and he will appear on each dates.

¶12

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.7.2023

¶15

Jyoti/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amrawati v. Tehsildar Judicaial, Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrawati v. Tehsildar Judicaial, Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya 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

Ram Jatan and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad

Janak Dulari and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Unnao and Another

Smt Bifai Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Khalilullah Alias Khaleel Ullah Siddiqui Vs Addl.Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad and 6 Others

Sant Ram and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Committee of Management Sri Nath Baba Education Soc. Thru. Its Manager Awadhesh Singh and Another Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and Others