Disposed

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

Allahabad HC31 May 2023WRIC/19293/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ court issued a direction to the respondent authority to expeditiously dispose of a pending mutation case filed under the U.P. Revenue Code within six months, noting the statutory limit for such disposal. The court explicitly clarified that it did not adjudicate the merits of the substantive dispute.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to decide Mutation Case No. RST/419/2016 expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of presentation of Certified copy of this order.

Basant Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:122789

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19293 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Basant Lal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ayub Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Mohd. Ayub, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.

¶7

In view of the order proposed, notice to private Respondent 4 is dispensed with.

¶8

Learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that Petitioners have filed a case on 11.01.2016 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which has been numbered as Mutation Case No. RST/419/2016, Computer Case No. T2016020306419 (Basant Lal & others v. Shivpati and others). Respondent No. 4 has also filed objections in the aforementioned case.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has further submitted that the aforementioned case was filed on 11.01.2016 and since then the matter is pending before Respondent No. 3.

¶10

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 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 petitioners is pending before Respondent No. 3 since 11.01.2016.

¶11

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

¶12

I find that the case under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was instituted on 11.01.2016 and is pending before the Respondent No. 2 since then, whereas, there is provision under Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for disposal of the said cases, within the stipulated period. Rule-34 (7) of U.P.

¶13

Revenue Code Rules, 2016 is extracted as under:-

¶14

"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."

¶15

Since there is provision under Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for deciding the cases of mutation within the stipulated period, therefore, it was obligatory upon the Respondent No. 2 to make earnest endeavour to decide the case of the Petitioners within the time stipulated in the aforementioned Rule 34 (7) but the aforesaid case is pending since 11.01.2016.

¶16

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.

¶17

In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to Respondent No. 3 to decide Mutation Case No. RST/419/2016, Computer Case No. T2016020306419 (Basant Lal & others v. Shivpati and others) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶18

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

¶19

Needless to say that Respondent No.3, while deciding the aforesaid case, will not grant unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶20

Order Date :- 31.5.2023

¶21

A.N. Mishra

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basant Lal and 2 Others 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

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

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