Smt. Upma Singh vs Nayab Tehsildar Amaniganj… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Smt. Upma Singh vs Nayab Tehsildar Amaniganj… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 (Nayab Tehsildar Amaniganj, Tehsil Milkipur, District Ayodhya) to decide Case No. 1313 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. T2024042304011313) strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order on merit after hearing the parties, expeditiously and preferably within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, unless there is any legal impediment; no unnecessary adjournments except in exceptional circumstances; personal appearance of parties permitted if lawyers do not cooperate.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct respondent No.1 (Nayab Tehsildar Amaniganj, Tehsil Milkipur, District Ayodhya) to decide the petitioner's pending Case No. 1313/2024 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously within a stipulated time fixed by the Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Without adverting to merits and with the consent of the parties, the Court finally disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.1 (Nayab Tehsildar Amaniganj) to decide Case No. 1313 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. T2024042304011313) strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, unless there is any legal impediment.

Ratio / Principle

As part of the operative direction, no unnecessary adjournments were to be granted to either party, and any adjournment, if prayed for, was permissible only in exceptional circumstances.

Key takeaways

If the lawyers fail to cooperate with the proceedings, whether on account of abstention from work or otherwise, the court concerned is to permit personal appearance of the parties to address it on the merits.ratio¶¶20
The Court observed that Rule 34(7), U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 carries a clear legislative mandate that proceedings not concluded within the stipulated period require the reasons for the delay to be recorded.obiter¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J. — MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 94 of 2025, Smt. Upma Singh v. Nayab Tehsildar Amaniganj, Tehsil Milkipur, Ayodhya & Ors., decided 13.1.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:2140). The petitioner sought a direction for expeditious disposal of her pending Case No. 1313/2024 (Computerized Case No. T2024042304011313) under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Nayab Tehsildar, Amaniganj — pending since 2024, with parties having sought time in April 2024 to file objections that were never filed. The Court quoted Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (endeavour to decide undisputed mutation cases within 45 days and disputed ones within 90 days, failing which reasons must be recorded) and noted the resulting legislative mandate. Learned Standing Counsel raised no objection to a time-bound disposal direction. Without adverting to merits, and with consent, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondent No.1 to decide the case strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order on merit after affording hearing, expeditiously and preferably within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order unless legally impeded; no unnecessary adjournments (exceptional circumstances only); and personal appearance of parties to be permitted if lawyers abstain from work or otherwise fail to cooperate. Service of notice on respondent nos. 2 & 3 was dispensed with. No precedent was cited or engaged; nothing was decided on the substantive merits of the Section 34 proceeding.