Indrajeet Indra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC29 May 2024/2644/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition for directing disposal of a pending mutation case under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which exceeded the statutory timeframe. The court dismissed the merits but granted liberty to file an urgency application to ensure speedy disposal by the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to move an urgency application for early disposal of the pending mutation case before the respondent court.

Indrajeet Indra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40618

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2644 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Indrajeet Indra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parijat Mishra Belavra,Kavita Mishra,Rama Shanker Pandey 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/Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Amethi, District Amethi, to decide the case bearing no. T202404710501436 (1436/2024) titled as 'Indrajeet Singh vs. Tribhuwan Singh' filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is pending since 19.02.2024 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 in the present case, the stipulated period has already been expired.

¶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 case bearing no. T202404710501436 (1436/2024) titled as 'Indrajeet Singh vs. Tribhuwan Singh' filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is pending since 19.02.2024 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 :- 29.5.2024 Nitesh

¶14

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indrajeet Indra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet Indra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Revenue Lko. and 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

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

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

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

Smt. Bhagwan Dei Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial Lucknow and Ors.

Sarita Gautam Vs Naib Tehsildar, Thesil Purwa, Distt. Unnao and Others

Mansha Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others