Anwaruddin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
In this writ petition, the Court held that the pending mutation case filed in 2021 was not disposed of within the time limit mandated by Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016. The Court dismissed the petition without adjudication on merits, directing the Respondent No. 2 to decide the case expeditiously within six months.
What did the court decide?
Direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide pending Case No. 6199/2021 expeditiously within six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, ensuring no unnecessary adjournments a
What the court decided
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13446 of 2023
Petitioner :- Anwaruddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Firoz Haider Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Heard Mr. Firoz Haider, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2.
In view of the order proposed, notice to private Respondent No. 3 is dispensed with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Petitioner has filed an application on 6.10.2021 under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which has been numbered as Case No. 6199 of 2021, Computer Case No. T202114360106199 (Anwaruddin Vs. Safiqun Nisha). Respondent No. 3 has given an application and sought time for filing objection in the aforementioned case.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the aforementioned case was filed on 6.10.2021 and since then the matter is pending before Respondent No. 2.
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 6.10.2021.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Respondent No. 2 was under an obligation to decide the pending case under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within the time stipulated in Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rule, 2016.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Anwaruddin
- respondent
State Of U.P.
- respondent
2 Others
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIC/13446/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court