The single judge directed the respondent authority to decide a pending mutation case filed by the petitioner within six months, citing violation of the statutory 90-day disposal timeline under the U.P. Revenue Rules.
Direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide the pending case No. 02071 of 2021 within a period of six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10266 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Juned Alam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar holding brief of Sri. Juned Alam, counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Sudhir Bharti Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3.
In view of the order proposed, notices to private Respondents No. 4 and 5 are hereby dispensed with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed a case under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 which has been numbered as Case No. 02071 of 2021, Computerized Case No. T202105440402071 (Ram Chandra Yadav vs Ram Adhar).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the aforesaid case was filed on 10.03.2021 and since then same is pending and has not been decided by Respondent No.2.
This writ petition was earlier listed before this court on 29.03.2023 and on the said date following order was passed :-
" Counsel for the State respondents seeks time to obtain instructions"
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 29.03.2023 Tehsildar, Tehsil Kasia, District Kushi Nagar has provided instructions to Chief Standing Counsel High Court Allahabad, wherein it has been mentioned that the next date fixed in the aforesaid case is 27.04.2023 and very soon the matter will be decided on merits.
Be that as it may. Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rule 2016 categorically provides that the mutation cases must be decided within time frame specified under the said rule. Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Rule, 2016 is extracted as under :-
"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."
I find that the aforesaid case was filed under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 on 10.03.2021 and in spite of the categorical provision under Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Rule 2016 for disposal of the mutation cases within maximum period of 90 days, till date the case filed by the petitioner has not been decided.
In view of the aforesaid this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide the Case No. 02071 of 2021, Computerized Case No. T202105440402071 (Ram Chandra Yadav vs Ram Adhar) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this court has not made any adjudication on merits of the case.
Needless to say that the Respondent No.2 while deciding the aforesaid case will not grant any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.
Order Date :- 20.4.2023 Gaurav
Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority has violated the statutory time limit for deciding mutation cases under Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Rule 2016.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to directions for disposal of his pending revenue case within a specified period.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Chandra Yadav
State Of U.P.
Manjive Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
