Disposed

Amitabh and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024WRIC/37283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to decide a pending computerized case under Section 38(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, directing the Tehsildar to conclude it within three months with a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tehsildar, Tehsil and District Ballia to decide the pending case within three months by a reasoned order on merit.

Amitabh and Another vs State of Up… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177640

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37283 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Amitabh And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Satish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the respondents no.1 & 2 and perused the record.

¶7

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

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondent No.2 to decide the Computerized Case No. T202415090304594 (Shyam Narain vs. State), under Section 38(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within stipulated period as directed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶9

(ii) .....................

¶10

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

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case under Section 38(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending for disposal since 2023 before the respondent No.2 but till date the proceeding has not been concluded.

¶12

Sub Rule 6 of Rule 36 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under:

¶13

"............ (6) An endeavour shall be made to conclude the proceeding for correction under section 38 within the period of 45 days from the date of receiving the application with the report and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reasons for the same shall be recorded. "

¶14

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.

¶15

Learned Additional Chief 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.

¶16

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent no.3 is dispensed with.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 and District Ballia (respondent No. 2), before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide the Computerized Case No. T202415090304594, 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. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to either of the parties and the

¶19

adjournment, if prayed for, will be permissible to be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Abhishek Gupta

¶22

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

Amitabh and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amitabh and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

Smt Vandana and 2 Others vs State of Up and 4 Others

Shalini Bajpai @ Sonal @ Shalini Devi vs Ashutosh Bajpai