Disposed

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

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023WRIC/11453/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court noted a pending mutation case filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in violation of the 45/90-day disposal mandate of Rule 34(7). The petition was disposed of with a direction to expedite the decision within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide Case No. 02773/2020 expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Satyanath Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11453 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Satyanath Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Rai, 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, 4 and 5 are dispensed with.

¶7

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner has filed a case on 26.11.2020 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which has been numbered as Case No. 02773/2020, Computer Case No. T202015510202773 (Satyanath and Others Vs. Vijay Nath). Respondent No. 4 has filed objections in the aforementioned case on 03.12.2020.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the aforementioned case was filed on 26.11.2020 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 26.11.2020.

¶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 26.11.2020 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 26.11.2020.

¶13

In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide Case No. 02773/2020, Computer Case No. T202015510202773 (Satyanath and Others Vs. Vijay Nath) 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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanath Maurya v. State of U.P. and 4 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

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

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