Dismissed

Hanumant Lal @ Hanumant Lal Mishra v. Tahsildar Judicial, Tahsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Another

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024A227/5963/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought expedition of a Section 34 U.P. Revenue Code mutation case pending since 2012. The court found he concealed pendency of other litigation and earlier withdrawal of a similar Article 227 petition for concealment, and dismissed the petition with Rs.2,500 costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed with cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited before DLSA Lucknow within two weeks, failing which recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

Hanumant Lal @ Hanumant Lal Mishra Vs Tahsildar… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83160

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5963 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Hanumant Lal @ Hanumant Lal Mishra Respondent :- Tahsildar Judicial, Tahsil Kunda, Pratapgarh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Priyam Mishra, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the private-respondent No.2 which is taken on record.

¶7

Learned standing counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions, under the signatures of Naib Tehsildar, Kunda, District Pratapgarh for the perusal of the Court, which is also taken on record.

¶8

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the respondent No.1 since the year 2012 and the same may be expedited.

¶9

From a perusal of the extracts of the order-sheets, which have been brought on record as Annexure No.3, which reveals that though several dates have been fixed, but no effective hearing has taken place and on large number of dates the Members of the Bar are abstaining from judicial work.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the private-respondent No.2 has raised an objection that the petitioner has not disclosed the true and correct facts.

¶11

It is urged that there are several litigation which is pending between the parties including a petition under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, a suit for division of land holding under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, registered as Case No.2239/2021 (Anjani Kumar Mishra v. Hanumant Lal, the petitioner in this case). Another regular suit is pending bearing 500/2018 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kunda, District Pratapgarh and these facts haven not been brought on record.

¶12

It is also urged that the petitioner herein had approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing No.5014 of 2023 (A-227), wherein the petitioner had also concealed the facts and as such the Court had permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition and no orders were passed. A copy of the said order dated 09.10.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.5014 of 2023 (A-227) has been provided to the Court for its perusal and the same is also taken on record.

¶13

In the aforesaid circumstances, despite the fact that the mutation case is pending since 2012, but it has not been disclosed in the instant petition as to what is the actual status and whether any interim order or otherwise which has been passed by any other Court which may have hampered the proceedings before the Court has not been brought on record. The petitioner has also disclosed the pendency of various petitions which relates to the same controversy and the subject matter. The petitioner has approached this Court in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is purely discretionary relief. Apart from the fact that in an earlier petition bearing Writ Petition No.5014/2023 (A-227), the petitioner did not get the relief from the Court simplicitor on the ground that he had not disclosed the correct and complete facts and once again the petitioner has committed the same folly. Since, there is no complete disclosure on the part of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,500/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the District Legal Service Authority, Lucknow within a period of two weeks, failing which, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 12.12.2024 Rakesh/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hanumant Lal @ Hanumant Lal Mishra v. Tahsildar Judicial, Tahsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumant Lal @ Hanumant Lal Mishra v. Tahsildar Judicial, Tahsil Kunda, Pratapgarh 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

Shabbir Ahmad and Others Vs D.D.C. and Others

Dharampal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Smt. Kiran Vs Rajendra Kumar and Another

Sandhya Singh Vs Mr. Surendra Tiwari, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Basic Education Directorate, Lko.

Jitendra Kumar Vs Board of Revenue Thru. President U.P. , Lucknow and Others

Angad Vs Additional Commissioner, Administration Ii, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others