Disposed

Sonamati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 May 2023WRIC/16993/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition, directing the state official to decide a pending land mutation case expeditiously within six months. The court invoked Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 regarding statutory timelines for mutation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to hear and decide the pending mutation case (T202205440201293) expeditiously within six months.

Sonamati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110600

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16993 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sonamati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶7

In view of the proposed order, notices to Private Respondents No. 3 and 4 are dispensed with.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has purchased land of Arazi No. 752, area 0. 1395 hectare through registered sale-deed from Respondent No. 3. Thereafter petitioner has instituted a case under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 05.3.2022 before the Respondent No. 2 and the Case has been registered as Case No.T202205440201293 ( Sonamati Vs. Subhash).

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the aforesaid case filed under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2006 is pending before the Respondent No. 2 since 05.3.2022 and has not been decided so far.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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. Rule-34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 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

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.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to Respondent No. 2 to hear and decide Case No.T202205440201293 (Sonamati Vs. Subhash) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶14

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

¶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 :- 19.5.2023 n.u.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NASEEM UDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonamati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonamati v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Ram Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Himanshu Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avinash Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijek Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sneh Lata Tiwari and Another Vs Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar, Gorakhpur and 3 Others

Smt. Premlata Vs State of U.P. and Another