Disposed

Hamidul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024A227/4850/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 writ petition, the Court disposed of the matter without adjudicating merits, directing the Tehsildar to expedite disposal of a mutation case pending since 2016 within 90 days, avoiding notice to private respondents to prevent further delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tehsildar, Jalalpur, to expeditiously decide the pending mutation petition preferably within ninety days from the date of this order.

Hamidul vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70219

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4850 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Hamidul

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Yasin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶7

1. Heard Mohd. Yasin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

2. The instant application has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Mutation Case No. T20160404021793 titled as Hamidul vs. Neeta Yadav under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, pending before respondent no.2Tehsildar, Jalalpur, Tehsil- Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nargar, within a stipulated period of time.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Code, 2006, which is pending since 2016. Various opportunities have been granted to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 to file the objections. Despite that the objections had not been filed by the opposite party nos. 3 and 4, therefore, the matter could not be decided and more than eight years have been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the instant proceedings are being entrusted as per the provisions of Rule 34 Sub-clause (7), the instant proceedings ought to have been concluded within 90 days, however, more than eight years have been passed and proceedings could not be concluded. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction for expeditious disposal for the said mutation proceeding pending before respondent no.2- Tehsildar, Jalalpur, Tehsil- Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nargar.

¶10

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State does not oppose the prayer so made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

5. In view of the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the private respondent nos.3 and 4 and keep the matter pending here, which will further delay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶12

6. In view thereof, the instant petition is disposed of without adverting to the merits of the case with a direction to the respondent no.2- Tehsildar, Jalalpur, Tehsil- Jalalpur, to proceed in the matter expeditiously and make an endeavour to decide the said petition filed by the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of ninety days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Shubham Arya

¶14

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶15

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

Hamidul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamidul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and 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

Ashadevi Vs Board of Revenue,U.P. at Lucknow Thru. Its Secy. and 4 Others

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Auraiya and Others

Babu Khan Vs Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi and Others

Devi Prakash Pandey Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and 25 Others

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

Ram Pratap Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others