Allowed

Hemlata Yadav v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2023WRIC/4320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Tehsildar, Tehsil- Kasia, District Kushinagar (Respondent No. 2) to decide a pending mutation case filed by the petitioner under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within a stipulated period, without adjudicating the merits of the dispute, and to pass a reasoned speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tehsildar to decide the mutation case expeditiously within a stipulated period and pass a reasoned speaking order.

Hemlata Yadav Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4320 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Hemlata Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Munna Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel representing the State respondents and perused the record.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed, interalia, for the following relief:-

¶7

"Issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the case no. 1860 of 2022 bearing Computer Case No. T202205440401860 (Smt. Hemlata Yadav Vs. Rudal) under Section- 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before Tehsildar, Tehsil- Kasia, District Kushinagar i.e. Respondent no. 2 within a stipulated period."

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a land through registered sale deed on 25.03.2022 from respondent no.3 and thereafter filed mutation case before the respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Tehsil- Kasia, District Kushinagar. Meanwhile, respondent no.4 has filed his objection on 28.03.2022 without having any locus only for delaying the mutation proceeding. It is further submitted that several dates have been fixed by the respondent no.2 but till date no final order has been passed as has been stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petiton.

¶9

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

¶10

In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case as mentioned in the present writ petition, with a direction to Tehsildar, Tehsil- Kasia, District Kushinagar (respondent No. 2), before whom the aforementioned matter is pending disposal, to decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶11

It is expected that it should be decided by a reasoned and

¶12

speaking order, in accordance with law expeditiously, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 13.2.2023

¶15

Abhishek Gupta

¶16

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶17

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

Hemlata Yadav v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemlata Yadav 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

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager vs Rameshwar @ Rameshwar Prasad Yadav and 3 Others

Smt. Geeta Devi and 3 Others vs Smt. Rita Singh and 2 Others

Indu Devi(Rai) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Imrana Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shivbhola Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others