The Court disposed of the writ petition regarding a pending mutation case u/s 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. It directed the Tehsildar to decide the case expeditiously within six months.
Direction to Respondent No.2 (Tehsildar) to decide the pending mutation case expeditiously within 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. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13430 of 2023
Petitioner :- Parvez Akhtar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Srivastava,Astitva Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 & 2 as well as Sri Prem Bahadur Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
In view of proposed order, notice to private Respondent No. 4 is hereby dispensed with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for mutation of his name in the revenue record. The aforesaid case was decided in his favour vide order dated 12.03.2011 and thereby name of the petitioner was recorded in the Khatauni.
Later on, Respondent No.4 filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order dated 12.03.2011 and restoration of the mutation case and the said application was allowed vide order dated 28.04.2022 thereby the Mutation Case No.3102/2022 (Computerized Case No-T202215090703102) (Parvez Akhtar Vs. Safi Ullah) has been restored.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the case of mutation is pending and has not been decide till date which is bound to cause lots of difficulties to the petitioner on spot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited atention of this Court towards Rule 34 (7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 wherein there is categorical provision for deciding the mutation cases within a period of 90 days.
Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 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 fro the date of the registration of the case and the disputed case of mutation within the
period of 90 days and if proceeding is not concluded within such period the reason for the same shall be recorded."
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and I find that legislature itself has provided under Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for disposal of the mutation case within a time frame manner.
Be that as it may, since the mutation case of the petitioer is pending and has not been decided finally, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.2- Tehsildar, Bilthara Road, District Ballia to consider and decide the Case No.3102 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202215090703102) (Parvez Akhtar Vs. Safi Ullah) 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 adjudicated on the merits of the case.
It is also made clear that Respondent No.2 while deciding the aforementioned case will not grant any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.
Order Date :- 21.4.2023 R.S. Tiwari
Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of given the prolonged pendency of the mutation case.
Whether the Tehsildar should decide the pending mutation case expeditiously.
Parvez Akhtar
State Of U.P.
Tehsildar, Bilthara Road, District Ballia
Safi Ullah
Respondent No.4
Manjive Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
