Disposed

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

Allahabad HC19 May 2023WRIC/17061/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Writ Petition addressed the pendency of a mutation case (Case No. 238 of 2022) filed under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Violating the 90-day timeline under Rule 34(7) of the 2016 Rules, the Judge disposed of the petition by directing the Tahsildar to decide the case expeditiously within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide Mutation Case No. 238 of 2022 expeditiously within six months.

Vijek Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110951

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17061 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Vijek Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3.

¶7

In view of the proposed order, notice to Respondent No. 4 is dispensed with.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has filed a Mutation Case No. 238 of 2022, Computerized Case No. T202205440200238 (Vivek Kumar Vs. Badhu). It has been submitted that the aforesaid mutation case has been filed before Respondent No. 2 under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even Respondent No. 4 has put in her appearance in the aforesaid case before Respondent No. 2 but the case is pending since 7.01.2022 and has not been decided by Respondent No. 2 till date.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that due to pendency of the aforesaid mutation case, lots of difficulties are arising on the spot.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

I find that Mutation Case No. 238 of 2022 filed by the petitioner is pending before Respondent No. 2 since 7.01.2022 and has not been decided till date. I also find that there is categorical provision under Rule 34 (7) of the U.P. Revenue

¶14

Code Rules, 2016 wherein it has been provided that mutation cases are to be decided within a period of 90 days.

¶15

Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 is extracted as under:

¶16

"(7) The Tahsildar 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."

¶17

At this stage, learned Standing Counsel has very fairly submitted that it would serve the ends of justice if a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid case.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to hear and decide Case No. 238 of 2022, Computerized Case No. T202205440200238 (Vivek Kumar Vs. Badhu) expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merits and, therefore, Respondent No. 2 while deciding the aforesaid case will not be guided by any observation made in this order.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 19.5.2023 A. Mandhani

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijek Kumar Singh 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

Sonamati 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