Disposed¶11

Smt. Reeta Pandey v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023WRIC/24027/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expeditious disposal of mutation proceedings; Section 34 U.P. Revenue Code 2006; 90-day statutory period expired; time-bound direction to respondent No. 2; three-month deadline from service of certified copy; no unnecessary adjournments; notice on private respondents dispensed; Reeta Pandey v. State of U.P.; Ram Shankar Shukla v. Chandrabhaga; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:165123.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to decide Case No. 7039/2022, Computerized Case No. T202202030307039 (Ram Shankar Shukla versus Chandrabhaga), under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments, within three months from the date of service of a certified copy of the order, strictly in accordance with law. ¶11

Smt. Reeta Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165123

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24027 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Reeta Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, 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 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 to decide Case No. 7039/2022, Computerized Case No. T202202030307039 (Ram Shankar Shukla versus Chandrabhaga), under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that mutation proceedings were initiated in the year 2022 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 requiring the respondent No. 2 seized with the Case No.

¶12

7039/2022, Computerized Case No. T202202030307039 (Ram Shankar Shukla versus Chandrabhaga), 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 :- 17.8.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶14

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶15

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

Smt. Reeta Pandey v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reeta Pandey v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashraf Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Saibaba Temple Gram Katara and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manager and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others