Disposed

Ravendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Raebareli and 9 Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2024/2188/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeks direction for the disposal of a 1999 pending mutation appeal under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to file an urgency application before the Tehsildar.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the mutation case before the Tehsildar.

Ravendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34252

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2188 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ravendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Raebareli And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been preferred for issuing a direction to the respondent no. 2-Tehsildar, Maharajganj, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raebareli to decide the Mutation Case No. 128/19992000 (Computerized Case No. T201810520104650) filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Krishna Pal & others Vs. Hajari Lal), which is pending since the year 1999 whereas as per Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the application filed under Section 34 of the Code, 2006, if undisputed, it is to be decided within a period of 45 days and if there is any dispute, then the same shall be decided within a period of 90 days.

¶8

It is further submitted that the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 is disputed by the private respondents as such, the same is to be decided within a period of 90 days from the day of submission of the application, whereas near about 24 years has been passed but the matter is still pending.

¶9

On being specifically asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that whether petitioner has preferred any urgency application for early disposal of the proceedings pending under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 by showing urgency in the matter before the Court concerned, it has been replied by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such application has been preferred before the Court concerned and petitioner has approached this Court directly for deciding the case expeditiously.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petition may be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of

¶11

the mutation case pending under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 before the Court concerned and if any such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided by the respondent no. 2 within the stipulated time by this Court may fix.

¶12

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

¶13

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application in Mutation Case No. 128/1999-2000 (Computerized Case No. T201810520104650) filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Krishna Pal & others Vs. Hajari Lal), before respondent no. 2. If any such urgency application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 2 shall decide the urgency application expeditiously as the case is an old matter pertaining to the year 1999, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.5.2024 Ashish

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Raebareli and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Raebareli and 9 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

Chandra Bali and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Ram Shankar and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Ram Achal and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Jhun Jhun Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Leelavati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sonkali Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others