Allowed

Pawan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023WRIC/23670/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction to the Tehsildar to expedite pending mutation proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, noting a statutory lapse of 90 days. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the response within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tehsildar to consider and decide the mutation proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within three months expeditiously.

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156878

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23670 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Pawan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Singh,Ritesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

Considering the nature of the controversy involved in the present writ petition, the relief claimed and the order that is proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the private respondents are being dispensed with.

¶8

The limited prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent No. 2, Tehsildar, Tehsil Kasya, District Kushi Nagar to decide Suit No. T2021054405118 (Pawan versus Suman Tiwari), under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within the stipulated period of time fixed by this Court.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that mutation proceedings were initiated in the year 2021 and till date the same has not been brought to its logical end.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

requiring the respondent No. 2, Tehsildar, Tehsil Kasya, District Kushi Nagar seized with the Suit No. T2021054405118 (Pawan versus Suman Tiwari), 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 three months from the date of service of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.8.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶14

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶15

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

Pawan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan 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

Smt. Manjulata vs Krishan Bihari Reza and Another

Sukhiya (Since Deceased) Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Parmeshar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Manuhar Pandey and 2 Others Vs Additional Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi Division and 3 Others

Sanjay Saini Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devidin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others