Allowed

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

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023WRIC/11428/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that the Tehsildar failed to dispose of a mutation case within the mandated 90-day period. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority to decide the pending case expeditiously within six months.

What did the court decide?

The pending mutation case (Case No. 03095 of 2019) is to be decided expeditiously within six months by the Tehsildar.

Sabiha Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11428 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Sabiha Khatoon Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Singh,Dharnidhar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

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

¶6

In view of the order proposed, notice to private Respondent No. 3 is dispensed with.

¶7

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Respondent No. 3 has filed a case on 03.09.2019 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which has been numbered as Case No. 03095 of 2019, Computer Case No. T201917630303095 (Asharaf Ali Vs. Hai Mohammad). Petitioner has filed objections in the aforementioned case on 04.12.2019.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the aforementioned case was filed on 03.09.2019 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 03.09.2019.

¶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 on 03.09.2019 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

¶12

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 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 aforesaid case is pending since 03.09.2019.

¶14

In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide Case No. 03095 of 2019, Computer Case No. T201917630303095 (Asharaf Ali Vs. Hai Mohammad) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 7.4.2023 A. Mandhani

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabiha Khatoon v. State of U.P. and 2 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

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

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

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

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