Disposed

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

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2023WRIC/24399/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, in a writ petition regarding delayed mutation proceedings initiated in 2013, directed the Tehsildar to decide the case expeditiously within two months, noting the statutory requirement for a 90-day timeline under the U.P. Revenue Code.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tehsildar to decide the mutation case within two months expeditiously without adjournments.

Sukhiya (Since Deceased) Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148937

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24399 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sukhiya (Since Deceased) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushmita Mukherjee,Abhijeet Mukherji

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

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

¶9

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-Sargadi, District Azmagarh to decide Case No. 1442/T2013156728 under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Act, 1901 within the stipulated period of time.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that mutation proceedings were initiated since 2013 and after putting appearance by the respondents, the same has not been finalized till date.

¶11

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.

¶12

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, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sargadi, District Azmagarh seized with the Case No. 1442/T2013156728, under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to consider and decide the same expeditiously

¶13

without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties within a period of 02 months from the date of service of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.7.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶15

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Shweta Khokhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Roshan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Radhika Devi Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Susheel Kumar Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishambhar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others