Disposed¶19

Noshad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2025WRIC/31123/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation proceedings; section 34 U.P. Revenue Code 2006; Case No. 622 of 2024 (T202409550100622); Tehsildar Tehsil-Sadar Muzaffar Nagar; time-bound disposal of mutation cases; State Government circular dated 09.07.2025; civil contempt under Section 2(e) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; mandamus for expedition; writ petition disposed without adjudication on merits; Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.; September 9, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Muzaffar Nagar, to conclude Case No. 622 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.T202409550100622) under section 34 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 within three months from production of a certified copy of the order, after hearing all affected parties; no adjudication on merits. ¶19

Noshad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Muzaffar Nagar, to decide Case No. 622 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.T202409550100622) under section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 expeditiously. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Muzaffar Nagar, is directed to conclude the proceedings of Case No. 622 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.T202409550100622) under section 34 U.P. Revenue Code 2006 positively within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, strictly in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Every Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer of the State must immediately comply with the State Government's directions; if mutation applications are kept pending and not decided within the time frame under the Circular dated 09.07.2025, the Code, 2006, or this Court's direction, it would amount to civil contempt under Section 2(e) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the officer would be held disobedient of the Court's order and guilty of contempt.

¶17

Key takeaways

The Court made it clear that it has not adjudicated the matter on merits.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.; decision dated September 9, 2025) disposed of a writ petition by Noshad seeking a mandamus to the Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, District Muzaffar Nagar, to decide Case No. 622 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.T202409550100622), Vakeeluddin and others Vs. State Bank of India through Sunil Kumar Duseja, under section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, expeditiously. Noting that petitions in large numbers were being filed for expediting mutation proceedings, the Court on 02.07.2025 had called for instructions from the State Government; in response, the State issued a circular dated 09.07.2025 requiring Collectors to ensure that Tehsildars and Sub Divisional Officers conclude mutation proceedings within the time prescribed under the Code. The Court directed every Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer to immediately comply with the State Government's directions and warned that keeping mutation applications pending beyond the time frame under the Circular dated 09.07.2025, the Code, 2006, or the Court's direction would amount to civil contempt under Section 2(e) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Tehsildar was directed to conclude the case within three months from production of a certified copy of the order, strictly in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties. The Court expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the matter on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 31123 of 2025

Noshad

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

		.....Res	pondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Kuldeep Kumar Bahadur Yati	Shukla,	Satendra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 34

¶8

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶9

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶10

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the case No. 622 of 2024 (Computrized case No.T202409550100622),( Vakeeluddin and others Vs. State Bank of India through Sunil Kumar Duseja), Under section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 for respondent No. 2 i.e. Tehsildar, Tehsil- Sadar District Muzaffar Nagar to direct the learned court below to decide the aforesaid case expeditiously preferably as earliest as possible as fixed by this Hon'ble court which is pending before him. "

¶11

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Case No. 622 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.T202409550100622), under section 34 U.P Revenue Code 2006 is pending consideration before respondent no.2Tehsildar, Tehsil- Sadar, District Muzaffar Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said case may be decided expeditiously.

¶12

This Court on 02.07.2025 had required Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General to get instructions from State Government as to why petitions in such a large number are being filed in this Court for expediting mutation proceedings.

¶13

Pursuant to query made by this Court, learned Additional Advocate General placed before the Court the circular issued by State Government on 09.07.2025 wherein a direction has been issued by State Government

¶14

WRIC No. 31123 of 2025

¶15

¶16

to all Collectors of the State requiring Tehsildars and Sub Divisional Officers of the Tehsil and Division to conclude the mutation proceedings within the time period prescribed under the Code.

¶17

This Court requires that each and every Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer of the State should immediately comply the directions issued by State Government and in case the mutation applications are kept pending and are not decided within the time frame as provided under the Circular dated 09.07.2025 or as provided under the Code, 2006 or directed by this Court, it would amount to civil contempt under Section 2(e) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Without any further direction, the officer will be held disobedient of the order of this Court and would be guilty of contempt.

¶18

In view of said fact, respondent no.2- Tehsildar, Tehsil- Sadar, District Muzaffar Nagar is hereby directed to conclude the proceedings of Case No. 622 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.T202409550100622), under section 34 U.P Revenue Code 2006, positively within a period of three months, from the date of production of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law, after hearing all the affected parties.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits. September 9, 2025 SK Goswami

¶21

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Noshad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noshad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases