Disposed

Gaya Prasad v. Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Kurwar Dist. Sultanpur and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2024/2429/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 227, granting liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for the fast disposal of a mutation case pending for over six years under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach the Revenue Court with an urgency application for expeditious disposal of the pending mutation case.

Gaya Prasad Vs Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37440

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2429 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Gaya Prasad Respondent :- Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Kurwar Dist. Sultanpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Tiwari,Giriraj Prajapati 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. 1- Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Kurwar, District Sultanpur to decide the Mutation Case No. 7686 of 2018 Computerized Case No. T201804680607686 titled as Ram Anugrah & anothers Vs. Rampati and others filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 , which is pending since 08.10.2018 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 6 years have 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 the mutation case pending under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 before the Court concerned and if any such application is

¶11

preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided by the respondent no. 1 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. 7686 of 2018 Computerized Case No. T201804680607686 titled as Ram Anugrah & anothers Vs. Rampati and others filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 , which is pending since 08.10.2018 before respondent no. 1. If any such urgency application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 1 shall decide the urgency application expeditiously 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 :- 16.5.2024 Ashish

¶15

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

Gaya Prasad v. Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Kurwar Dist. Sultanpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaya Prasad v. Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Kurwar Dist. Sultanpur and 2 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

Swami Ram Teerth Vidhyalaya Thru. Its Manager Sri Vivek Vikram Singh Vs the Court of Addl. Commissioner Administration and 3 Others

Shiv Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ram Karan and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

Pankaj Shakya Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and Another

Harish Chandra Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation , Sultanpur and Others

Ram Pratap @ Ram Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others