Disposed

Kanchan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024/1149/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 227 sought a direction to expedite pending mutation proceedings initiated in 2022, which had not been concluded within the statutory timelines, causing hardship to the petitioner. The court directed the authority to decide the matter expeditiously within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tahsildar, Jaisinghpur, to decide the pending mutation proceedings (Case No. 4571/2022) most expeditiously within three months.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20211

¶2

Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1149 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kanchan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Heard.

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

" Issue order or direction to directing the opposite party no. 2 to decide the of Case No. 4571/2022, Computerize Case No: T202204680704571; Kanchan Versus Savitri Devi @ Savitri, under section - 34 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending before the respondent no. 2 i.e. Tahsildar, Tahsil-Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur, in accordance with law at the earliest with the time fixed by this Hon'ble court. "

¶8

It is stated that as per Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016, the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and as such ought to have been decided preferably within 45 days if there is no dispute and if there is dispute, the same ought to have been decided preferably within 90 days. However, the proceedings which were initiated by the petitioner in the year 2022, have not been concluded till date and on account of pendency of the same, the petitioner being the lady are suffering great hardship and mental agony. In these circumstances, the indulgence of this Court is required. The prayer is to expedite the said pending proceedings.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

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. 4571/2022, Computerize Case No: T202204680704571; Kanchan Versus Savitri Devi @ Savitri) 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.3.2024

¶15

Jyoti/-

¶16

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

Kanchan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Govind Prasad Vs Commissioner

Pawan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Badri Prasad and Another Vs Court Consolidation Officer Sadar 1ST Barabanki and 7 Others

Mohd.Basir Khan Vs A.D.C.

Ram Udit Pal and Another Vs Add. Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya and 2 Others

Ran Jeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others