Dismissed

Rekha Devi v. Nayab Tehsildar Babaganj Tehsil Kunda District Pratapgarh and Another

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2024/5510/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the delayed disposal of a mutation case filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending for 21 months. The court did not enter into merits but disposed of the petition by granting liberty to file an urgency application before the Respondent for expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the pending mutation case before the Respondent.

Rekha Devi Vs Nayab Tehsildar Babaganj… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76658

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5510 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rekha Devi Respondent :- Nayab Tehsildar Babaganj Tehsil Kunda District Pratapgarh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar 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-Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil-Babaganj, Tehsil Kunda, District Pratapgarh to decide the Mutation Case No. 662 of 2023 Computerized Case No. T202302570100662 titled as Rekha Devi Vs. Vijay Kumar filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 , which is pending since the month of February, 2023 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 respondent 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 21 months 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 preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided by the respondent no. 1 within the stipulated time by this Court may fix.

¶11

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, which is pending since the year 2023 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, in case there is no legal impediment and if any adjournment is unavoidable only short adjournment may be given.

¶12

Order Date :- 20.11.2024 Nitesh

¶13

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

Rekha Devi v. Nayab Tehsildar Babaganj Tehsil Kunda District Pratapgarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Devi v. Nayab Tehsildar Babaganj Tehsil Kunda District Pratapgarh and Another

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

Akhilesh Mishra vs Sri Nitesh Bhondele, Distt. Panchayat Raj Officer, Barabanki

Ashok Kumar vs Shri Deepak Kumar Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and Others

Smt. Suneeta vs Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Dr. Ankit Gupta, Assistant Professer Vs Professor (Dr.) Arvind Rajvanshi Executive Director (E.D) Rae Bareli and 2 Others

Dinesh Chandra Vs Board of Revenue, Lucknow Thru. Member and 19 Others

Jyoti Vs Raj Kapoor Nayab Tehsildar (Jahangirganj) Tashil Alapur