Disposed

Avinash Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2023WRIC/22076/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Allahabad High Court dispensed with notice to private respondents. The Court directed the Tehsildar to decide pending mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which had exceeded the statutory timeline. The petition was disposed of by issuing a three-month deadline without adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Directed Tehsildar to decide mutation proceedings within three months of service of certified copy, strictly without adjournments.

Avinash Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143591

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22076 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Avinash Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶7

Considering the nature of the controversy involved in the present writ petition, the service of notice upon the private respondent is being dispensed with.

¶8

The limited prayer made by the petitioners in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent No. 2, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Rasra, District Ballia to decide Case No. 608 of 2020) (New Number 02245 of 2020) Computerized Case No. T202215090402245 (Avnish and others versus Bal Mukund), under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within the stipulated period of time.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that mutation proceedings were initiated since 2020 and after putting appearance by the respondent No. 3, the objection has not been filed till date.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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.

¶11

Considering the innocuous prayer made by the petitioners 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, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Rasra, District Ballia seized with the Case No. 608 of 2020) (New

¶12

Number 02245 of 2020) Computerized Case No. T202215090402245 (Avnish and others versus Bal Mukund), under Section 34 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 three months from the date of service of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.7.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Avinash Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Kumar and 2 Others 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

Gangadeen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umakant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anjali Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Munna Lal Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Manju Vs State of U.P. and Another