Allowed

Gorakh Nath and Another v. Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar Aasal, Amethi and Another

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2023A227/5885/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an Article 226 writ petition filed to expedite a pending mutation case under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It directed the Tahsildar to decide the matter within three months via a reasoned speaking order after hearing parties, citing the mandatory timeline in the Revenue Code Rules and avoiding delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 1 to decide Case No. 4170/2021 under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously within three months via a reasoned speaking order.

Gorakh Nath and Another Vs Naib Tehsildar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:75510

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5885 of 2023 Petitioner :- Gorakh Nath And Another Respondent :- Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar Aasal, Amethi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Pratap Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Narendra Pratap Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Praful Kumar Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:

¶7

"(i) To issue order or direction to the opposite party no. 1 for deciding the case no. 4170 / 2021 bearing Computerized Case No. T202104710504170 (Gorakh Nath & another Vs. Vidyawati) under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in the interest of justice."

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceeding in Case No. 4170 / 2021, Computerized Case No. T202104710504170 (Gorakh Nath & another Vs. Vidyawati) under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the respondent no. 1 but till date the said proceeding has not been concluded and because of the pendency of the said case the petitioners are facing undue hardship.

¶9

Sub Rule (7) of Rule 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under:

¶10

"(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."

¶11

Since, there is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within the period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned case, within stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

¶13

In view of the nature of the proposed order to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent no. 2 is dispensed with.

¶14

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶15

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, with a direction to the respondent no. 1, before whom the Case No. 4170 / 2021, Computerized Case No. T202104710504170 (Gorakh Nath & another Vs. Vidyawati) under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending for disposal, to decide the same strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to either of the parties.

¶16

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 17.11.2023 Arif

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gorakh Nath and Another v. Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar Aasal, Amethi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorakh Nath and Another v. Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar Aasal, Amethi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devata Deen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Smt. Pushpa Shukla Alias Pushpa Devi Vs Civil Judge ( Junior Division) North Distt. Unnao and 7 Others

Pno No. 870490068, Virendra Kumar Rai and 55 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home the Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Vinod Verma Alias Vinod Kumar Vs Consolidation Officer, Kunda, Pratapgarh and 13 Others

Shri Bhagwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Neeraj Kumar Upadhyay Vs Assistant Collector / Tehsildar, Tehsil Kadipur, Sultanpur and Another