Partly allowed

Smt Durga Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2024WRIC/28655/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Tehsildar to decide a dissolution-of-marriage case within the time limit prescribed under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, noting the appeal-related context.

What did the court decide?

The Tehsildar Nautanawa is directed to decide Case No. 1940 of 2017 within the statutory time limit of 90 days under Rules 34(7) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Smt Durga Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:140963

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28655 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Durga Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kiran Rani,Laloo Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed herein, no useful purpose would be served by putting the opposite party to notice and keeping this petition pending before this Court. However, in case the opposite party feels aggrieved by the order his/her right to seek modification/variation of the order is being kept reserved.

¶8

The basic relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is to direct the respondent No.2/Tehsildar Nautanawa, Tehsil Nautanawa, District Maharajganj to decide the Case No.1940 of 2017 (Computer Case No.T2017054752031940) (Smt. Durga Devi Vs. Gena) within stipulated period.

¶9

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as per provisions contained under sub-rule (7) of Rules 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, such kind of applications should be decided within a time bound period. Sub Rule (7) of Rules 34 reads as follows:-

¶10

"(7). The Tahsildar shall make an endeavor to decide 20 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.

¶11

It is further argued that though the aforesaid period has already been lapsed but

¶12

till date no final decision has been taken in the matter, hence the present writ petition.

¶13

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of finally directing the respondent No.2/Tehsildar Nautanawa, Tehsil Nautanawa, District Maharajganj to decide the aforesaid case as per the provisions contained under sub-rule (7) of Rules 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, unless there is no legal impediment.

¶14

Order Date :- 31.8.2024 saqlain

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Durga Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Durga Devi v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Anamika Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Priyanu Katiyar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kedar vs State of Up and 4 Others

Brahmadai vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohan Lal vs State of Up and 5 Others

Suresh Babu vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 10 Others