Disposed¶13

Smt. Isartun Nisha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023WRIC/11411/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: mutation proceedings; Section 34 U.P. Revenue Code 2006; Rule 34(7) U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016; 45-day and 90-day disposal timelines; Tehsildar; pendency/delay in mutation case; direction for expedited disposal within six months; no unnecessary adjournments; Mutation Case No. 5866/2022; Computer Case No. T202215060105866; Isartun Nisha v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Manjive Shukla J.; WRIT - C No. 11411 of 2023; order dated 7.4.2023.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide Mutation Case No. 5866/2022, Computer Case No. T202215060105866 (Isatun Nisha Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim) expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to any party. ¶13

Smt. Isartun Nisha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No. 2 should be directed to decide the Petitioner's mutation case under Section 34, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending since 13.07.2022, within the timeline prescribed by Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

¶10

Court's answer

It was obligatory upon Respondent No. 2 to make earnest endeavour to decide the Petitioner's mutation case within the time stipulated in Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the case having been pending since 13.07.2022.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide Mutation Case No. 5866/2022, Computer Case No. T202215060105866 (Isatun Nisha Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim) expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order.

¶13

Key takeaways

While deciding the mutation case, Respondent No. 2 shall not grant unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WRIT - C No. 11411 of 2023), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Manjive Shukla, J., decided 7.4.2023. The Petitioner's mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Mutation Case No. 5866/2022, Computer Case No. T202215060105866, Isatun Nisha Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim), filed on 13.07.2022 and pending before Respondent No. 2, had remained undecided beyond the timelines in Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (45 days for undisputed and 90 days for disputed mutation cases). The Court held it obligatory on Respondent No. 2 to make earnest endeavour to decide the case within the stipulated period and disposed of the writ petition with a direction to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within six months of presentation of a certified copy of the order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to any party.

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11411 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Isartun Nisha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Yadav, Advocate, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶6

In view of the order proposed, notices to private Respondents No. 3 and 4 are dispensed with.

¶7

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner has filed a case on 13.07.2022 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which has been numbered as Mutation Case No. 5866/2022, Computer Case No. T202215060105866 (Isatun Nisha Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim). Respondent No. 4 has also filed objections in the aforementioned case on 11.08.2022.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the aforementioned case was filed on 13.07.2022 and since then the matter is pending before Respondent No. 2.

¶9

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rule, 2016 categorically provides that the Tehsildar shall make endeavour to decide the undisputed cases of mutation within the period of 45 days and the disputed cases of mutation within a period of 90 days but the case of the petitioner is pending before Respondent No. 2 since 13.07.2022.

¶10

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. I find that the case under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was instituted by the Petitioner on 13.07.2022 and is pending before the Respondent No. 2 since then, whereas, there is provision under Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rule, 2016 for disposal of the said cases, within the stipulated period. Rule-34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rule, 2016 is extracted as under:-

¶11

"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."

¶12

Since there is provision under Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rule, 2016 for deciding the cases of mutation within the stipulated period, therefore, it was obligatory upon the Respondent No. 2 to make earnest endeavour to decide the case of the Petitioner within the time stipulated in the aforementioned Rule 34 (7) but the Case filed by the petitioner is pending since 13.07.2022.

¶13

In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide Mutation Case No. 5866/2022, Computer Case No. T202215060105866 (Isatun Nisha Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶14

Needless to say that Respondent No.2, while deciding the aforesaid case, will not grant unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.4.2023 A. Mandhani

¶16

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

Smt. Isartun Nisha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Isartun Nisha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shriram Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Rajendra Ram Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Sabiha Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satyanath Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mirza Sayeed Beg Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others