Disposed

Santoshi Devi v. Tehsildar Tehsil Mishrikh Distt. Sitapur and Another

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2024/661/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 petition for delays in mutation proceedings, the Court directed the Tehsildar to decide the pending case within three months without unnecessary adjournments, affording parties full hearing opportunities.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.-1 directed to consider and decide pending mutation proceedings most expeditiously within three months from the next fixed date.

Santoshi Devi Vs Tehsildar Tehsil Mishrikh Distt. Sitapur… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12392

¶2

Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 661 of 2024 Petitioner :- Santoshi Devi Respondent :- Tehsildar Tehsil Mishrikh Distt. Sitapur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shankar Mishra,Pranav Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Heard.

¶5

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

¶6

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶7

"a. Direct the opposite party no.1 i.e. Tehsildar, Tehsil-Mishrikh, District-Sitapur to decide the Case No. 2227/2021, Computerized Case No. T202110640102227, Santoshi Devi V / s Jagmohan, under section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code expeditiously, within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble court, in the interest of justice."

¶8

It is stated that as per Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 made under the U.P. Revenue Code , the mutation proceedings being summary in nature, ought to have been decided preferably within 45 days if there is no dispute and if there is dispute, the same ought to have been decided preferably within 90 days. However, the proceedings which were initiated by the petitioner in the year September 2021, have not been concluded till date. In these circumstances, the indulgence of this Court is required.

¶9

It is further submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided.

¶10

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending. Accordingly, in the ends of justice the respondent No.-1 is directed to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Case No. 2227/2021, Computerized Case No. T202110640102227, (Santoshi Devi V / s Jagmohan) most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within three months from the next date fixed before it, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶12

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.2.2024

¶15

Jyoti/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santoshi Devi v. Tehsildar Tehsil Mishrikh Distt. Sitapur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santoshi Devi v. Tehsildar Tehsil Mishrikh Distt. Sitapur 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

Shyam Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 13 Others

Rajesh Kumar Rathour Vs Mukesh and 5 Others

Brahmanand Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Ziledar Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Bahraich and 6 Others

Daya Ram and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Meraj Ahmad Vs Tehsildar Tehsil Musafirkhana District Amethi and 6 Others