Disposed

Smt Vandana and 2 Others v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024WRIC/37275/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction for the recall and restoration of an ex-parte order in a mutation case. The Court directed the respondent Tehsildar to decide the pending recall application expeditiously, preferably within three months, by a reasoned speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tehsildar, Tehsil Budhanpur to decide the pending recall/restoration application within three months by a reasoned speaking order.

Smt Vandana and 2 Others vs State of Up and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177760

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37275 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Vandana And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is allowed to amend the prayer clause of the writ petition, during the course of the day.

¶8

The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia , for the following relief:

¶9

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the recall application and restore the ex-parte order dated 16.11.2023 (Vandana and others versus Sushil Singh and another), Case No.5088 of 2022 in Computerized Case No. T202215060605088 under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 passed by the respondent no.2 and decide the matter within a stipulated period in the interest of justice.

¶10

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to protect the possession of the petitioner over the land in question till the decision of the case before court.

¶11

(iii) ....................

¶12

(iv) ...................."

¶13

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a mutation application under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by the petitioner which was registered as Case No.5088 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202215060605088) (Vandana and others versus Sushil and another).

¶14

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that due to some unavoidable reasons, he could not appear before the court concerned on 16.11.2023 and the court, in the absence of the petitioner, dismissed the said case. The petitioner moved an application for restoration/recall of the said order before the court of Tehsildar, Tehsil Budhanpur, District Azamgarh-respondent no.2 which is pending for disposal.

¶15

6. Para 479 of the Revenue Court Manual provides as under:

¶16

"Reason for delay in disposal- If the period for concluding a proceeding has not been fixed in the Code or the Rules; the court shall endeavour to conclude the proceeding within a period of ninety days and if the proceeding is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded."

¶17

There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within stipulated period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the case within stipulated period as to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent nos.3 to 5 is dispensed with.

¶20

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶21

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Tehsildar, Tehsil Budhanpur, District Azamgarh (respondent No.2), to decide the aforesaid pending application, if any, of the petitioner for restoration/recall of the order dated 16.11.2023, strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment.

¶22

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶23

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Abhishek Gupta

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Vandana and 2 Others v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vandana and 2 Others v. State of Up and 4 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

Chandra Prakash vs Deputy Director of Consolidation /Chief Revenue Officer District Gonda and 6 Others

Satya Tripathi vs Nandita Dwivedi and Others

Vimla Singh and Another vs Ram Lakhan and Others

Amitabh and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

Amitabh and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

Shalini Bajpai @ Sonal @ Shalini Devi vs Ashutosh Bajpai