Kallo Vs Naib Tehsildar, Bacchrawan, Tehsil… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Kallo Vs Naib Tehsildar, Bacchrawan, Tehsil… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of by directing respondent No.1/Naib Tehsildar, Bacchrawan (Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raebareli) to decide Computer Case No. T-202410580105374 (Kallo v. Permeshwardeen) most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing and without granting unnecessary adjournment, preferably within three months from the next date fixed; issuance of notice to the private respondent(s) dispensed with; merits expressly left unexamined.

Issue for consideration

Should opposite party No.1 (Naib Tehsildar, Bacchrawan) be commanded/directed to decide the pending mutation application - Computer Case No. T-202410580105374 (Kallo versus Permeshwardeen), sought under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Act - expeditiously within a stipulated time? +1 more

Court's answer

A direction was issued to respondent No.1 (Naib Tehsildar, Bacchrawan Tehsil-Maharajganj, District Raebareli) to consider and decide the Computer Case No. T-202410580105374 (Kallo versus Permeshwardeen) most expeditiously.

Ratio / Principle

The decision is to be taken after affording full opportunity of hearing to the party to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the case.

Key takeaways

Since mutation proceedings under Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 are summary in nature and ought to be decided within 45 days (no dispute) or preferably 90 days (dispute), this Court took the view that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending.ratio¶10
The Court has not examined the case of either party on merits; the Authority concerned shall remain free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law (merits expressly left open).obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 expedite petition (MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 1890 of 2025) by Kallo before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Saurabh Lavania, J.), praying that opposite party No.1 be directed to decide mutation application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Act - Computer Case No. T-202410580105374 (Kallo v. Permeshwardeen) - expeditiously. Noting that under Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (framed under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) mutation proceedings, being summary in nature, ought to be decided within 45 days absent dispute and preferably within 90 days where disputed, and that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to respondent No.1/Naib Tehsildar, Bacchrawan (Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raebareli) to consider and decide the computerised case most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing and without unnecessary adjournments, preferably within three months from the next date fixed; notice to private respondent(s) was dispensed with, and the Court expressly clarified it had not examined the merits, leaving the Authority free to decide strictly in accordance with law. Order dated 5.4.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:19030.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19030

Court No. - 7

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1890 of 2025

Petitioner :- Kallo Respondent :- Naib Tehsildar, Bacchrawan, Tehsil Maharajganj, Raebareli And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the privaterespondent(s), if any, is hereby dispensed with.

The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief:-

"Issue a, order or direction commanding the opposite party no - 1 to decide the mutation application under section 34 of U. P. Revenue Act, Computer case no-T - 202410580105374 ( Kallo Versus Permeshwardeen) exepeditiously within stipulated time, in the interest of justice."

Considering the fact that the case in issue relates to mutation and as per Rule 34 (7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 framed 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, this Court is of the view that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the present petition pending.

In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1/Naib Tehsildar, Bacchrawan Tehsil-Maharajganj, District Raebareli to consider and decide the Computer case No. T- 202410580105374 (Kallo Versus Permeshwardeen) most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the party to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the case.

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

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

Order Date :- 5.4.2025

ML/-

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench