Disposed

Smt. Mamta Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2023WRIC/6495/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of a pending mutation case. The Court granted the prayer, directing the Tehsildar to conclude the proceedings within four months to prevent prejudice to the petitioner's rights.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to conclude the mutation case and substitution application within four months.

Smt. Mamta Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6495 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Mamta Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶2

Heard Shri Ashok Kuamr Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the Staterespondents as well as Shri Sudhr Bharti, learned counsel representing the Gaon Sabha.

¶3

This petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Mutation Case No. T201605310203573 (Renuka vs Purshottam), under section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, along with substitution application, if any, pending before respondent No. 2, Tehsildar, Khajani Gorakhpur.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pendency of the aforesaid case is causing serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and therefore this Court should issue a direction for expeditious disposal of the case.

¶5

Learned Standing Counsel has no serious objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

In view of the above, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2, to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case along with substitution application, if any, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶7

In case the lawyers do not cooperate with the proceedings either on account of abstainment from work or otherwise, the court concerned shall permit personal appearance of the parties to address it on the merits of the aforesaid case. However, the authority/court concerned shall take special care of the fact that the property rights of the parties may not be adversely affected only on account of non-cooperation of the lawyers and the aforesaid matter shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law, taking care of the statutory provisions and after making critical analysis of the material available on record.

¶8

Order Date :- 3.4.2023 Sazia

¶9

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Mamta Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mamta Shukla 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

Avanish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Javed and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akhalak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aslam Vs State of U.P. and 22 Others

Beni Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others