Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a time-bound direction: respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi, to conclude the pending S. 34 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 proceedings (Case No. 345 of 2025 / T202502420400345, Surendra Kumar v. Devdutt Pandey) within three months from production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties; accompanied by a general warning that failure to meet prescribed mutation timelines would constitute civil contempt under S. 2(e), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a mandamus directing respondent no.2 (Tehsildar, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi) to decide the pending Case No. 345 of 2025 (T202502420400345, Surendra Kumar v. Devdutt Pandey) under S. 34, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within a specific period fixed by the Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi, is directed to conclude the proceedings of Case No. 345 of 2025, Computerized Case No. T202502420400345 (Surendra Kumar v. Devdutt Pandey) under S. 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.

Ratio / Principle

Every Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer of the State must immediately comply with the directions issued by the State Government; if mutation applications are kept pending and not decided within the time frame provided under the Circular dated 09.07.2025, under the Code 2006, or as directed by this Court, 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.

Key takeaways

The writ petition was disposed of with the aforesaid directions; the Court expressly clarified that it has not adjudicated the matter on merits.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad HC (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J., sole author), decided 11.09.2025 — WRIT-C No. 31628 of 2025 (Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. & 3 others). Petition sought a mandamus to respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi, to decide pending Case No. 345 of 2025 (Computerized No. T202502420400345; Surendra Kumar v. Devdutt Pandey) under S. 34, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within a Court-fixed period. After querying (02.07.2025) why so many petitions seek expedited mutation proceedings, the Additional Advocate General produced a State Government circular of 09.07.2025 ordering Collectors to make Tehsildars/SDOs conclude mutation proceedings within the prescribed period. Court disposed the writ by: (i) directing respondent no.2 to conclude the case within three months of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties; and (ii) generally requiring all Tehsildars and Sub Divisional Officers to comply with the State directions, declaring that leaving mutation applications undecided beyond the timeframe of the Circular, the Code or the Court's order would constitute civil contempt under S. 2(e), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Court expressly did not adjudicate on merits.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 31628 of 2025

Surendra Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

			.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Akshat Jaiswal, Onkar Nath	Om	Prakash Yadav,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 34

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

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

"1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent no.2/ Tehsildar, TehsilSirathu, District- Kaushambi to decide the Case No. 345 of 2025, Computerized Case No. T202502420400345 (Surendra Kumar Versus Devdutt Pandey) U/s 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending before him, within specific period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court"

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Case No. 345 of 2025, Computerized Case No.T202502420400345 (Surendra Kumar Versus Devdutt Pandey) U/s 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending consideration before respondent no.2- Tehsildar, Tehsil- Sirathu, DistrictKaushambi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said case may be decided expeditiously.

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.

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 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.

WRIC No. 31628 of 2025

2

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.

In view of said fact, respondent no.2- Tehsildar, Tehsil- Sirathu, DistrictKaushambi is hereby directed to conclude the proceedings of Case No. 345 of 2025, Computerized Case No.T202502420400345 (Surendra Kumar Versus Devdutt Pandey) U/s 34 of 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.

With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits. September 11, 2025 SK Goswami

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

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