Disposed¶16

Laxmi Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026WRIC/15344/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Writ-C 15344 of 2026; Laxmi Devi v. State of U.P.; Manish Kumar Nigam, J.; mandamus; mutation of name in revenue record; Section 34 Revenue Code, 2006; Case No. 685 of 2020; T202005310700685; pendency since 2020; direction to decide expeditiously; six-month timeline; service and hearing; no unnecessary adjournments; no legal impediment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to decide Case No. 685 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. T202005310700685) under Section 34, Revenue Code, 2006, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within six months from production of a certified copy of the order, after ensuring service and hearing, without unnecessary adjournments, subject to there being no other legal impediment. ¶16

Laxmi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 15344 of 2026

Laxmi Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

¶9

Court No. - 36

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶12

The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief:

¶13

" (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent no.2 to decide the Case No. 685 of 2020 Computrized Case No. T202005310700685 (Smt. Laxmi Devi v/s Dinesh Mishra) under section 34 Revenue Code, 2006 pending before him since 2020 for mutation of the name of the petitioner in revenue record forthwith or within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble court."

¶14

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that aforementioned case is pending since 2020 and the same has not been decided despite several dates have been fixed. He prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously.

¶15

In view of above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending.

¶16

Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned case, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment.

¶17

April 23, 2026 Nitika Sri.

¶18

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Laxmi Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Gulam Mohammad and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Karim Vs D.D.C. and Others

Ravindra Patel vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Bachu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Binni vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satyendra Alias Satyendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others