Disposed

Shaista Siddiqui v. Naib Tehsildar Rehra, Tehsil Utraula, Balrampur and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2023/6286/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 227 was filed challenging the delay by a Naib Tehsildar in deciding a mutation case. The court held that the mandatory 90-day period under Rule 34(7) was exceeded and directed the respondent to decide the case within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 1 to decide the pending Mutation Case No. 475 of 2011-2012 preferably within six months.

Shaista Siddiqui Vs Naib Tehsildar Rehra, Tehsil… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:83155

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6286 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Shaista Siddiqui Respondent :- Naib Tehsildar Rehra, Tehsil Utraula, Balrampur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1.

¶7

In view of the proposed order, notice to Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has filed a case for mutation before Naib Tehsildar Rehra, Tehsil, Utraula, District Balrampur which is registered as Mutation Case No. 475 of 2011-2012 Computerized Case No. T201208100303880 (Abdullah and Others Vs. Fatima Bibi).

¶9

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the aforementioned case was filed on 17.11.2012 and since then matter is pending before Respondent No. 1.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that under Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 it has been provided that mutation cases are to be decided within a period of 90 days.

¶11

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I find that Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides that disputed mutation cases are to be decided within a period of 90 days. For ready reference, Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 is extracted as under:

¶12

"34 (7). The Tehsildar 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."

¶13

Since there is provision under Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue

¶14

Code Rules, 2016 for deciding the cases of mutation within the stipulated period, therefore, it was obligatory upon the Respondent No. 1 to make earnest endeavour to decide the case of the petitioner within the time stipulated in the aforementioned Rule 34 (7) but this court finds that mutation case filed by the petitioner is pending since 17.11.2012.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid reasons, without entering into merits of the case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 1 to decide the pending Mutation Case No. 475 of 2011-2012 Computerized Case No. T201208100303880 (Abdullah and Others Vs. Fatima Bibi) expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.12.2023 A. Mandhani

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shaista Siddiqui v. Naib Tehsildar Rehra, Tehsil Utraula, Balrampur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaista Siddiqui v. Naib Tehsildar Rehra, Tehsil Utraula, Balrampur 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

Prem Kumar Trivedi Thru Smt. Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

South African Breweries India Ltd. Vs Mohan Meakin Ltd.

Syed Hamidul Hasan Vs Allahabad Band Main Branch Bahraich and Others

Ram Awadhesh Vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Others

Ram Kalap Yadav @ Ram Kalap Vs Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, Ayodhya and Others

Rajbali @ Rajbli Vs Consolidation Officer, Pargana and Tehsil, Akbarpur, Ambedkar Nagar and Others