Disposed

Shiv Dutt v. Naib Tehsildar Jagdishpur Tehsil Musafirkhana Mandal Ayodhya Amethi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024A227/84/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a direction to decide pending mutation proceedings under Section 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 2006 within three months, citing prolonged delay causing hardship. The court directed the respondent to decide the case expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent-No.1 to decide the pending mutation proceedings Case No. T202204710202913 most expeditiously preferably within three months.

Shiv Dutt vs Naib Tehsildar Jagdishpur Tehsil… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2952

¶2

Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 84 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shiv Dutt Respondent :- Naib Tehsildar Jagdishpur Tehsil Musafirkhana Mandal Ayodhya Amethi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Sharma,Rajendra Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Heard.

¶5

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

¶6

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶7

"I. Direct the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Naib Tehsildar, Jagdishpur, Tehsil- Musafirkhana, Mandal- Ayodhya , District- Amethi to decide the the Mutation Case Under Section 33 of The U.P. Land Revenue Act 2006 bearing Computerized Case No. T202204710202913 (Krishan Dutt Vs Brhamdutt), as early as possible within the stipulated time period."

¶8

It is stated that as per Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 made under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the mutation proceedings, being summary in nature, ought to have been decided within 45 days if there is no dispute and if there is dispute, then the same should preferably be decided within 90 days. However, in the instant case, the proceedings for mutation are pending since June 2022 and on account of pendency of the same, the petitioner is suffering great hardship and mental agony. In these circumstances, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. The prayer is to direct the respondent no.1 to decide the pending proceedings within stipulated time.

¶9

It is further submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided.

¶10

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.-1 to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Case No. T202204710202913 (Krishan Dutt Versus Brhamdutt) most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed before it, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶12

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 Jyoti/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Dutt v. Naib Tehsildar Jagdishpur Tehsil Musafirkhana Mandal Ayodhya Amethi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Dutt v. Naib Tehsildar Jagdishpur Tehsil Musafirkhana Mandal Ayodhya Amethi and 2 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 Keval Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others

Reeta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Shiv Shyam Tiwari Vs Tahsildaar Milkipur Dist Ayodhya and Another

Gayatri Singh U/a 227 Vs Board of Revenue Thu Member Judicial Lucknow and 4 Ors.

Faujdar @ Faujdar Rambali Jaiswar Vs Nayab Tahsildar Tahsil Kadipur Distt. Sultanpur and Another

Shiv Dutt Vs Naib Tehsildar Jagdishpur Tehsil Musafirkhana Mandal Ayodhya Amethi and 2 Others