Disposed

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

Allahabad HC29 May 2024/2672/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court permitted the petitioner to correct Respondent No. 1's details and disposed of the plea for speedy disposal of a pending mutation application by granting liberty to file an urgency application before the lower court without deciding the merit.

What did the court decide?

P to correct details of R1. Petition disposed with liberty to move an urgency application before R1 for early disposal of the mutation case.

Sarita Gautam Vs Naib Tehsildar, Thesil Purwa, Distt… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40591

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2672 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sarita Gautam Respondent :- Naib Tehsildar, Thesil Purwa, Distt. Unnao And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to inadvertence, the particulars of the respondent no. 1 has wrongly been transcribed as Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao whereas it is Naib Tehsildar, Hilauli, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao, thus, he may be permitted to correct the same.

¶8

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

¶9

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend/correct the details of respondent no. 1 as mentioned in the preceding paragraph during the course of the day.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Mutation Case No. 5837/2021 (Computerized Case No. T2021106905837) was filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Sarita Gautam Vs. Pramod Kumar) by the petitioner, which was decided in his favour by order dated 14.02.2023. Against the said order, an application for recall was preferred by the respondent no. 2. The said recall application preferred by the respondent no. 2 was allowed on 07.11.2023 since then, the matter is pending.

¶11

It is further submitted that 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.

¶12

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 months has been passed but the matter is still pending.

¶13

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.

¶14

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. 1 within the stipulated time by this Court may fix.

¶15

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

¶16

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 aforesaid case, 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.5.2024 Ashish

¶18

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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.

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

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