Disposed

Rani Devi v. Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Bangar Mau, Unnaoand Another

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024A227/4783/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 writ petition, the High Court directed the Tehsildar of Tehsil Bangar Mau to decide pending mutation and revenue proceedings, specifically Case No. RST/04026/2021, within sixty days. The direction was issued based on precedents mandating time-bound disposal of revenue cases under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

What did the court decide?

To decide case No. RST/04026/2021 and other pending proceedings expeditiously within sixty days of producing the certified copy of this order.

Rani Devi vs Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Bangar Mau… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69520

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4783 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rani Devi

¶5

Respondent :- Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Bangar Mau, Unnaoand Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Tripathi,Neha Chaurasia,Pramod Kumar Rawat Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Indra Pal Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

2. The instant petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

¶9

"i) An Order or Direction directing the opposite party no.1 to deciding the case No. RST/04026/2021; Shobhit versus Gram Sabha computerized Case No. T202110690604026 since pending before him since 2021 with in a time stipulated period in the interest of justice. (contained as Annexure No. 1)"

¶10

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2 has filed a mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in which the petitioner herein has filed her objections on 08.09.2021. Since then, the proceedings are pending.

¶11

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgement of this Court in Ram Janak vs. State of U.P. reported in 2019 (143) RD 807 , submits that the Tehsildar is bound to decide the contested petition within a period of 90 days. He has also relied upon another judgement of this Court dated 19.05.2023 in Writ C No. 17072 of 2023 (Daya Shankar vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) , wherein it has been held as under:

¶12

"12. For the proceeding mentioned above, the legislature has provided time bound disposal for some of the proceedings but despite specific time fixed by the Code, 2006 proceeding could not be decided for a number of reasons and in most of the cases due to negligence on the part of presiding officers or due to the absence of sufficient number of presiding officers as well as the continuous strike of bar in Tehsil or Collectorate. The following provisions of Code, 2006 provide a specific time for deciding the proceedings as follows:-

¶13

(i) Dispute regarding boundaries by Sub-Divisional Officer is to be decided within three months from the date of the application as per Section 24(3) of Code, 2006 which is quoted as below:-

¶14

"24(3). Every proceeding under this section shall, as far as possible, be concluded by the Sub-Divisional Officer within three months from the date of the application."

¶15

(ii) Mutation proceedings u/s 35 of Code, 2006 is to be decided within 45 days if

¶16

mutation is undisputed and within 90 days if mutation is disputed as per Rule 34(7) of Rules, 2016 which is quoted as below:-

¶17

"34(7). The Tahsildar shall make an endeavour to decide the undisputed case of mutation within the period of 45 days from the date of the registration of the case and the disputed case of mutation within the period of 90 days and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reason for the same shall be recorded"

¶18

(iii) Proceeding for correction of record as per Section 38 of Code, 2006 is to be decided within 45 days from the date of receiving application with the report as per Rule 36(6) of Rules, 2016 which is quoted as below:-

¶19

"36(6). An endeavour shall be made to conclude the proceeding for correction under section 38 within the period of 45 days from the date of receiving the application with the report and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reasons for the same shall be recorded."

¶20

(iv) Application for cancellation of irregular allotment of abadi side u/s 66 should be decided within six months as per Rule 65(10) of Rules, 2016 which is quoted as below:-

¶21

"65(10). The Collector shall make an endeavour to conclude the inquiry within the period not exceeding six months from the date of registration of the case and if the inquiry is not concluded within the period aforesaid the reason for the same shall be recorded."

¶22

(v) Proceeding to prevent wrongful occupation and damage of Gram Sabha property u/s 67 is to be decided within the period of 90 days as required by Rule 67(6) of Rule, 2016 which is quoted as under:-

¶23

"67(6). The Assistant Collector shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceeding under section 67 of the Code within the period of ninety days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reasons for the same shall be recorded."

¶24

(vi) Proceeding for granting permission to transfer the land of schedule caste under Section-98 should be completed within period of 15 days as per Rule 99(11) and which is quoted as under:

¶25

"99(11). The Collector shall make an endeavour to dispose of the application under section 98(1) within the period of fifteen days from the date of receiving the report submitted by the inquiry officer and if the application is not disposed of within such period the reason for the same shall be recorded."

¶26

(vii) For division of holding under Section 116 of the Code, 2006 is to be decided within a period of six months as provided by Rule 109(10) of Rules, 2016 which is quoted as under:-

¶27

"109(10). The Sub-Divisional Officer shall make an endeavour to decide the suit within the period of six months and if the suit is not decided within such period, the reason shall be recorded."

¶28

(viii) Proceeding for cancellation of irregular allotment of agricultural land u/s 128 should be completed within a period of three months as per Rules 126(6) of Rules, 2016 which is quoted as under:-

¶29

"126(6). The Collector shall endeavour to conclude the enquiry within the period of three months from the date of issuance of notice and if the enquiry is not concluded within the period of three months, the reasons for the delay shall be recorded."

¶30

13. Apart from the above proceeding for which specific time frame was fixed by the legislature in the Code, 2006 or in the Rules, 2016 there are other proceedings for which no time frame has been fixed either in Code, 2006 or in Rules, 2016 therefore, the concerned presiding officer or the revenue officer should make endeavour to decide these proceedings in following manner :-

¶31

(i) Application for right of way and other easement u/s 25 should be decided within a period of one month and if the same could not be concluded then reason for the same should be recorded.

¶32

(ii) Application for removal of obstacle from public road, path or common land of village u/s 26 should endeavour to be decided within a period of one month and if the same could not be concluded then reason for the same should be recorded;

¶33

(iii) Application u/s 58 to decide the dispute regarding property mentioned in Sections 54, 56 and 57 should be decided preferably within a period of three months from the date of application and if the same could not be decided then reason for the same should be recorded;

¶34

(iv) Application u/s 65 for delivery of possession of allotted land from unauthorized person should be decided preferably within a period of three months and if the same could not be concluded then reason for the same should be recorded;

¶35

(v) Application for the execution of the final decree passed u/s 116 of Code, 2006 by demarcation of Kurra on site should be decided within a period of one month and if the same could not be concluded then reason for the same should be recorded;

¶36

(vi) A suit for declaration as bhumidhar/asami under Section-144 of the Code, 2006 should be decided within a period of the six months and if the same could not be concluded then the reason for the same should be recorded;

¶37

(vii) Any other application referable to any provision of Code, 2006 should also be decided within the period prescribed by Code, 2006 or Rules, 2016, if no time is prescribed by Code, 2006 or by Rules, 2016 then same should be decided within a period of one month and if same is not decided within aforesaid period then reason should be recorded.

¶38

14. If the proceedings mentioned above are appealable or revisable or subject to second appeal as per the provision of Code, 2006 and if no time is prescribed by the Code, 2006 then these proceedings should also be decided within a period of six months up to the level of Commissioner and within a period of one year by the Board of Revenue, and if not decided within the said period then the reason for the same should be recorded.

¶39

15. While calculating the period mentioned above as directed by this Court for

¶40

deciding different proceedings under Code, 2006, the date on which there was a strike of Bar as well as the dates on which the person seeking benefit of this order take adjournment should be excluded.

¶41

16. If any stay application, recall application or any other miscellaneous application is filed during above mentioned proceedings, then same should be decided within a period of one month and if same is not decided within aforesaid time, then reason should be recorded. It is made clear that during the pendency of recall application or stay application, no coercive action be taken against the applicant ."

¶42

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also undertakes that he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and cooperate in the proceedings.

¶43

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent no.1/Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil- Bangar Mau, District- Unnao, to decide the aforesaid proceedings expeditiously preferably within a period of sixty days from the date of production of a certified copy of this orders, if there is no legal impediment.

¶44

7. Needless to say, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioner.

¶45

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 Shubham Arya

¶46

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶47

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rani Devi v. Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Bangar Mau, Unnaoand Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani Devi v. Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Bangar Mau, Unnaoand Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 4 Others

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector/ Ziladhikari Ayodhya and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Others

Duryodhan Singh Vs D.D.C. and Others

Rani Devi Vs Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Bangar Mau, Unnaoand Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others