Dismissed

Shakuntala Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024/11/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 227 seeking direction to expedite pending mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Court directed respondent to decide case within three months without adjournment. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.-2 to consider and decide pending proceedings of Case No. 5703/2021 most expeditiously within three months without granting unnecessary adjournments, after affording full opport

Shakuntala Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1105

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shakuntala Soni Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Richa Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

¶7

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶8

"(I) To issue order or direction, directing and commanding to opposite parties especially opposite party No. 2 to expedite the Case No. 5703/2021 (computerized case no. T202104230405703), 'Smt. Shakuntala Vs. Umesh Kumar' under section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously within stipulate period in the ends of justice."

¶9

It is stated that as per Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 made under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the mutation proceedings, being summary in nature, ought to have been decided within 45 days if there is no dispute and if there is dispute, then the same should preferably be decided within 90 days. However, in the instant case, the proceedings for mutation are pending since 2021 and on account of pendency of the same, the petitioners are suffering great hardship and mental agony. In these circumstances, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. The prayer is to direct the respondent no.2 to decide the pending proceedings within stipulated time.

¶10

It is further submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided.

¶11

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.-2 to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Case No. 5703/2021, Computerized Case No. T202104230405703 (Smt. Shakuntala Versus Umesh Kumar) most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed before it, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶13

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.1.2024

¶16

Jyoti/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shakuntala Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudhakar Tewari and 2 Others Vs Deputy Director Consolidation Sultanpur and 5 Others

Ram Lakhan Vs J.D.C. and Others

Reeta Devi and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Kashi Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revnue, Lucknow and 5 Others

Ram Dhiraj Vs Learned Court of Addl. Commissioner (Administration) Lko. Mandal, Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Saeedan Vs Inamuddin and 6 Ors.