Disposed

Umang Pathak v. Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Sadar, Faizabad Now Ayodhya and Another

Allahabad HC14 May 2025A227/2827/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a court directive for timely disposal of a recall application and mutation case pending before a Nayab Tahsildar. The High Court disposed of the petition with directions to decide the recall application preferably within two months and conclude the mutation proceedings within three months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Umang Pathak Vs Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Sadar, Faizabad Now Ayodhya and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28042

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2827 of 2025 Petitioner :- Umang Pathak Respondent :- Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Sadar, Faizabad Now Ayodhya And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratibha Singh,Prashansa Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.

¶6

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

¶7

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

¶8

"[I] Direct the opposite party no. 1 i.e. Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil-Sadar, District-Faizabad Now Ayodhya to decide the recall application along with Mutation Case No. 9215/2024, computerized case No. T202404230109215, Under Section-49 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Village-Manjha, Jamthara, Pargana-Haveli Awadh, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Ayodhya (Umang Pathak Versus Ajay Rastogi), which is pending before him since 06.09.2024 within a time frame as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also that the proceedings in issue are summary in nature and being so, the same ought to have been decided expeditiously, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1/Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil-Sadar, District-Faizabad Now Ayodhya to consider and decide the recall application filed in Mutation Case No. 9215/2024, computerized case No. T202404230109215, (Umang Pathak Versus Ajay Rastogi) most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of two months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶10

The authority concerned is also directed to conclude the proceedings of the pending case, indicated in prayer clause of this petition quoted above, most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties 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, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard. It is after taking note of Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 made under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 , as per which, 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Jyoti/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Umang Pathak v. Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Sadar, Faizabad Now Ayodhya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Umang Pathak v. Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil Sadar, Faizabad Now Ayodhya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Shanker Vs Board of Revenue Lko. and Ors.

Sadashiv and Another Vs Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Ramdev Thru. Power of Attorney Ankur Kumar Yadav Vs Board of Revenue, Thru. Chairman, Lucknow and Others

Irshad Educational and Welfare Society, Barabanki Thru. Manager, Parvej Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate / Collector, Barabanki and Others

Gafoor Ali Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and 4 Others