Disposed

Manju Agrahari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 May 2024/2601/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner sought direction to respondent No. 2 (Nayab Tehsildar) to decide a pending mutation appeal filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The court observed the delay and allowed the petitioner liberty to file an urgency application before the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move an urgency application for early disposal of the mutation case pending under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Manju Agrahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40191

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2601 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Manju Agrahari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar,Rajnish Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondent no.2/Nayab Tehsildar Baskhari, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar to decide the mutation computerized case no. T-202104040302491 titled as 'Manju vs. Ramkirat' filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is pending since 10.08.2021 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 two years and nine months have 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 preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided by the respondent no. 2 within the stipulated time by this Court may fix.

¶11

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

¶12

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 computerized case no. T-202104040302491 titled as 'Manju vs. Ramkirat' filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is pending since 10.08.2021 before respondent no. 2. If any such urgency application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 2 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.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.5.2024 Ashish

¶14

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

Manju Agrahari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Agrahari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. 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

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue and 6 Others

Ram Sumer Vs Addl. Commissioner Faizabad Mandal Faizabad Now Ayodhya and Others

Shrimati Maryam @ Arshi Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Thru. Chairman Lko. and 3 Others

Kashi Ram Vs D.D.C. and Ors.

Ramu (Died) and Others Vs Addl. Commissioner, Judicial, 2ND, Lko. Division Lko. and 3 Others

Karmaita Vs Nayab Tehsildar Bhadainya Tehsil Lambhua Distt. Sultanpur and Another