Single judge bench disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of mutation proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, having expired the statutory 90-day period.
Direction to decide Mutation Case No. 840 of 2023 expeditiously within three months of serving the certified copy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143250
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22068 of 2023
Petitioner :- Manju Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Om Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.
The limited prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent No. 2, Naib Tehsildar Dhanupur, Tehsil Handia, district Prayagraj to decide Mutation Case No. 840 of 2023, Computerized Case No. T202302030400840 (Manju Versus Madan Kumar Mishra) under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within the stipulated period of time.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that mutation proceedings were initiated in the year 2023 and after putting appearance by the respondents, the objection has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of the Court towards the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and submits that mutation proceedings are required to be decided at the earliest and the statute provided that such proceedings should be brought to its logical end within a period of 90 days. He submits that period of 90 days has since been expired and, therefore, appropriate directions be issued to the respondent No. 2 to decide the proceedings.
Considering the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner for expeditious disposal of the mutation proceedings and also taking into consideration the fact that the period provided under the statute has since been expired, the writ petition is disposed of by requiring the respondent No. 2, Naib Tehsildar Dhanupur, Tehsil Handia, district Prayagraj seized with the Mutation Case No. 840 of 2023, Computerized Case No. T202302030400840 (Manju Versus Madan Kumar Mishra) under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to consider and decide the same expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to
either of the parties within a period of 3 months from the date of service of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.7.2023 Ravi Prakash
Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to decide mutation proceedings expeditiously under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manju
State of U.P.
Naib Tehsildar Dhanupur
Ashutosh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
