Allowed

Bade Lal v. Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Amethi District Amethi and Another

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2024/908/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 petition regarding delayed mutation proceedings, the High Court directed the Nayab Tehsildar to decide Suit No. 03883/2019 within three months, ensuring no unnecessary adjournments, without examining the case on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.-1 to decide pending Suit No. 03883/2019 within three months of service of the order.

Bade Lal Vs Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Amethi District Amethi… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17085

¶2

Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 908 of 2024 Petitioner :- Bade Lal Respondent :- Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Amethi District Amethi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Milan Yadav,Om Prakash Yadav 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

"I. Issue an order or direction thereby commanding the opposite party no. 1 to decide the Suit No. 03883 /2019, Computerized Case No. T-201904710503883 under Section- 35, U.P. Revenue Code 2006, pending before the Opposite Party No. 1 (Nayab Tehsildar TehsilAmethi District- Amethi) (Bade Lal Vs. Sharda Prasad) within stipulated period, as early as possible, contained herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this petition, in the interest of justice."

¶8

It is stated that as per Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016, the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and as such 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 2020, have not been concluded till date. In these circumstances, the indulgence of this Court is required. The prayer is to expedite the said pending proceedings.

¶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. It is accordingly disposed of with direction to respondent No.-1 to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Suit No. 03883 /2019, Computerized Case No. T-201904710503883 (Bade Lal Vs. Sharda Prasad) most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned, 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 :- 26.2.2024/Jyoti/-

¶15

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

Bade Lal v. Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Amethi District Amethi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bade Lal v. Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Amethi District Amethi 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

Haushila Prasad Vishwakarma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

Kamlesh Kumar and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Lakhimpur Kheri and 3 Others

Omkar Vs Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki and Another

Heera Lal and Ors. Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs the Additional Commissioner Ayodhya Division,Ayodhya and 3 Others

Smt. Jaiki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others