Disposed

Sunita Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2024WRIC/29526/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking directions to the Nayab Tehsildar to decide a pending mutation case within the time limit fixed by Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, which had already lapsed without any decision.

What did the court decide?

Nayab Tehsildar directed to decide Case No.920 of 2023 per Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, unless there is no legal impediment.

Sunita Shukla vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29526 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunita Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shankar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶6

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.

¶7

The basic relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is to direct the respondent No.2/Nayab Tehsildar, Pargana Atrauliya, Tehsil Budahnpur District Azamgarh, to decide Case No.920 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. T202315060600920) (Sunita Vs. Vikas) under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within stipulated period.

¶8

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 Rules, 2016, such kind of applications should be decided within a time bound period. Sub Rule (7) of Rules 34 reads as follows:-

¶9

"(7). The Tahsildar shall make an endeavor 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.

¶10

It is further argued that though the aforesaid period has already been lapsed but till date no final decision has been taken in the matter, hence the present writ petition.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of

¶12

finally directing the Nayab Tehsildar, Pargana Atrauliya, Tehsil Budahnpur District Azamgarh to decide the aforesaid case as per the provisions contained under subrule (7) of Rules 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, unless there is no legal impediment.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.9.2024 saqlain

¶14

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

Sunita Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Shukla v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Zaheer Ahmad vs State of Up and 4 Others

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. and 25 Others

Jai Prakash Kannaujiya and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Aviral Pandey vs State of Up and 5 Others

Onkar Nath Singh and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Vijaypal vs Sri Amit Kumar Singh and 4 Others