Disposed

Kafeel Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2024A227/2495/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an amendment to correct the district name of a respondent and disposed of a writ petition regarding delay in a mutation case, granting liberty to file an urgency application.

What did the court decide?

Permission to amend petition; liberty to file urgency application for speedy decision of Section 34 mutation case; direction to respondent to decide expeditiously.

Kafeel Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38234

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2495 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Kafeel Ahmad

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Tripathi,Sanjai Kumar Pandey,Suresh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to inadvertence and typographical error, the respondent no. 2 has wrongly been mentioned as Tehsildar, Tehsil Rudauli, district Ambedkar Nagar whereas it is Tehsildar, Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya, so the petitioner may be permitted to make necessary amendment/correction in the writ petition wherever it has been occurred.

¶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 make necessary correction/amendment in the present petition.

¶10

Respondent no.2 i.e. Tehsildar, Tehsil Rudauli, District Ambedkar Nagar shall now be read as respondent no. 2- Tehsildar, Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya in the present petition.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been preferred for issuing a direction to the respondent no. 2- Tehsildar, Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya to decide the Mutation Case No. T201904230702205 titled as Kafeel Ahmad Vs. Mohd. Shahid Chief Manager, Bank of India Branch Rudauli filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 , which is pending since 30.05.2019 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.

¶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,

¶13

whereas near about 5 years have been passed but the matter is still pending.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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 Mutation Case No. T201904230702205 titled as Kafeel Ahmad Vs. Mohd. Shahid Chief Manager, Bank of India Branch Rudauli filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 , which is pending since 30.05.2019 before respondent no. 2. If any such urgency application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 2 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.5.2024 Ashish

¶19

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

Kafeel Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kafeel Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 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

Ram Prakash and Another Vs Dy. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Kalpram Yadav @ Kalapram Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Shravasti and Others

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Its Member Judicial and 10 Others

Ghanshyam Dubey Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Tarabganj District Gonda and 2 Others

Shivnandan Verma Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Judicial) Haidergarh,Distt. Barabanki and 4 Others

Neha Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others