Disposed

Indravti v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC13 May 2024A227/2351/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directions for expeditious decision of a pending mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Court disposed of petition granting liberty to file an urgency application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to move an urgency application; respondent directed to decide urgency application expeditiously after hearing parties.

Indravti vs State of U.P. Thru… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36404

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2351 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Indravti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned State Counsel.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition has been preferred for issuing a direction to the respondent no. 2 Tehsildar, Tehsil Lambhua, District Sultanpur to decide the Application No./Case No. 02826 of 2020, Computerized Case No. T2020046802826 titled as 'Indravti versus Jagannath' filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred as Code, 2006), pending before respondent no. 2 since 03.11.2020, 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 near about three and a half years 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 Case 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 urgency application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for early disposal of the mutation case pending under Section 34 of the Code, 2006.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present writ 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, and if any such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided by the respondent no. 2 within the stipulated time

¶11

this Court may fix.

¶12

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

¶13

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application in Application No./Case No. 02826 of 2020, Computerized Case No. T2020046802826 titled as 'Indravti versus Jagannath' filed under Section 34 of the Code, 2006, pending before respondent no. 2 since 03.11.2020. If any such urgency application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 2 shall make an endeavour to decide the urgency application expeditiously, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 DiVYa

¶15

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indravti v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indravti v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 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

Savitri Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Kamarool Nisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Nayab Tehsildar (Diyara) Tehsil Jaisinghpur Distt. Sultanpur and 2 Others

Chhotelal @ Chhotan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

R.T.Chaubey Vs D.D.C.

Saisun Nisa Vs the Collector / D.M. Sultanpur and Others

Ravindra Kumar and 2 Others Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial Ayodhya Division Ayodhya and 7 Others