Disposed

Matloob Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2023WRIC/42575/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court directed the respondent Naib Tehsildar to decide a pending mutation case within three months in conformity with U.P. Revenue Code provisions, recording the order as disposed of without merits. Relied on Sub Rule 7 of Rule 34 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Naib Tehsildar to decide the pending mutation case within three months.

Matloob Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:233402

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42575 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Matloob Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar,Lal Ji Maurya,Shyam Sundar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Lal Ji Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anand Kumar Upaddhyay, learned counsel representing the Staterespondents no.1 & 2 and perused the record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia , for the following relief:

¶8

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the Case No.813 of 203 (Computer Case No. T202302030300813) (Matloob Ahmad and others versus Abrar Ahmad) under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending in the court of learned Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj/Allahabad within stipulated time which may be specified by this Hon'ble Court.

¶9

(ii) .....................

¶10

(iii) ...................."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending for disposal since 26.02.2023 before the respondent No.2 but till date the proceeding has not been concluded.

¶12

Sub Rule 7 of Rule 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under:

¶13

"............(7). The Tahsildar shall make an endeavour to decide the undisputed case of mutation within the period of 45 days from the date of the registration of the case and the disputed case of mutation within the period of 90 days and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reason for the same shall be recorded."

¶14

There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within stipulated period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the case within stipulated period as to be fixed by this Court.

¶16

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent no.3 is dispensed with.

¶17

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶18

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj (respondent No. 2), before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide the Case No. 813 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. T202302030300813) strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further

¶19

directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to either of the parties and the adjournment, if prayed for, will be permissible to be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

¶20

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶21

Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Abhishek Gupta

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Matloob Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matloob Ahmad 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

Vindra (Minor) and Another Vs Board of Revenue and 4 Others

Umesh Chand and 4 Others Vs Board of Revenue and 5 Others

Kanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ramswaroop Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jawahir Vs Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur AND11 Others

Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others