Disposed

Neelam Maurya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2023WRIC/15201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition following the petitioner's complaint regarding the delayed disposal of a mutation case. It directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the pending case within eight months, noting the statutory requirement for quicker disposal, while reserving adjudication on the merits for the revenue authority.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the pending mutation case (Case No.1145 of 2022) expeditiously within eight months from the date of this order.

Neelam Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15201 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Neelam Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kalp Dev Mishra,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has filed a mutation case under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which has been numbered as Case No.1145 of 2022, Computerized Case No.T202214290401145 (Neelam Devi Versus Jokhan) before Respondent No. 2.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though the aforesaid case was filed on 07.04.2022 but till date in spite of best cooperation of the petitioner the case has not been decided.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention of this Court towards Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 wherein it is provided that mutation cases are to be decided within a period of 90 days.

¶9

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

I find that Case No.1145 of 2022, Computerized Case No.T202214290401145 (Neelam Devi Versus Jokhan) is pending before Respondent No.2 since 07.04.2022.

¶11

I also find that there is a categorical provision in Rule-34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 wherein it is provided that mutation cases are to be decided within a period of 90 days. Rule-34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 is extracted as under:-

¶12

"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."

¶13

At this stage, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that ends of justice would be served if a positive direction is issued to Respondent No.2 for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid case.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to Respondent No. 2 to hear and decide Case No.1145 of 2022, Computerized Case No.T202214290401145 (Neelam Devi Versus Jokhan) expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶15

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated over the merits of the case.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 5.5.2023 Sachin/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neelam Maurya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Maurya 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

Sant Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Ram Lal Pal Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Deepa Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishnawati Devi and 3 Others Vs Additional Commissioner Varanasi Division and 2 Others

Sidhnath Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajnath Ram Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others