Disposed

Munna Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC31 May 2023WRIC/19264/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding a pending application for recall of a mutation order from 2017. Issuing a direction, the Court mandated the competent authority to decide the recall application within two months and the ensuing mutation case within four months, while explicitly stating that the writ itself did not adjudicate the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direct Supreme Judge No. 2 to hear and decide the pending recall application within two months and the mutation case within four months.

Munna Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:122944

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19264 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Munna Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Geetanjali,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

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

¶7

In view of the proposed order, notice to private Respondent No. 3 is dispensed with.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Respondent No. 3 filed a case for mutation on 03.01.2000 and the said case was allowed vide order dated 1.02.2000 whereby direction was issued to mutate the name of Respondent No. 3 in respect of agricultural land in question.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner after coming to know about the aforesaid order dated 1.02.2000, has filed an application for recall of the order dated 1.02.2000 and restoration of the case to its original number. The aforesaid application for recall of order dated 1.02.2000 has been filed on 18.09.2017 along with application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since year 2017, his application for recall of order dated 1.02.2000 and restoration of the case to its original number, is pending and has not been decided till date.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention of this Court towards Rule 34 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 wherein legislature has made categorical provision that mutation cases are to be decided within a period of 90 days but instead of that, till date, application filed by the petitioner has not been decided.

¶12

I have considered submissions advanced by learned counsel for

¶13

the petitioner and I find that application for recall of order dated 1.02.2000 filed by the petitioner on 18.09.2007 in Computerized Case No. T201817650100184/447 (Jamurata Devi Vs. Daya Ram) is pending since year 2017.

¶14

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

¶15

At this stage, learned Standing Counsel has very fairly submitted that ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid application for recall of order dated 1.02.2000 and also for expeditious disposal of the mutation case.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to hear and decide application for recall of order dated 1.02.2000 filed by the petitioner in Computerized Case No. T201817650100184/447 (Jamurata Devi Vs. Daya Ram) within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶17

It is further provided that if Respondent No. 2 allows the aforesaid application for recall of order dated 1.02.2000 and restoration of the mutation case then he is directed to proceed to hear and decide the entire case itself within a period of next four months from the date of decision on the application for restoration.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 31.5.2023 A. Mandhani

¶21

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

Munna Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Yadav 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

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Jaipur Thru. Manager Legal Office,Lucknow vs Cheddu and 6 Others

Girja Shanker Verma and Ors. Vs the State of U.P.and Another

Sonamati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prahlad Maurya Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ranjit Paswan Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Basant Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others