Disposed¶16

Bachu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2026WRIC/15456/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

mandamus; expeditious disposal of pending revenue case; Section 34 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; restoration case; mutation case; Naib Tehsildar Mathura; pendency since 2025; twelve-week timeline; service of notice and opportunity of hearing; no legal impediment; Allahabad High Court; Manish Kumar Nigam, J.; Bachu Singh v. State of U.P.; WRIT - C 15456 of 2026

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to decide Restoration Case No.5460 of 2025 (arising from Mutation Case No.122 of 2023) in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks from production of a certified copy of the order, after ensuring service of notice on all respondents and opportunity of hearing to all concerned, provided there is no other legal impediment. ¶16

Bachu Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the Naib Tehsildar, District Mathura to decide Restoration Case No.5460 of 2025 (filed in Mutation Case No.122 of 2023) under Section 34, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within a stipulated period fixed by the Court.

¶13

Court's answer

Since the restoration application remains pending, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending; the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the pending application in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The direction to decide the application is conditioned upon ensuring service of notice upon all the respondents, providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, and applies only if there is no other legal impediment.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Manish Kumar Nigam, J., April 23, 2026) in WRIT - C No. 15456 of 2026 (Bachu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another): Writ petition seeking mandamus to the Naib Tehsildar, Mathura to decide Restoration Case No.5460 of 2025 (Computerized Case No.T-202501500105460), filed in Mutation Case No.122 of 2023 (Bachu Singh Vs. Sukkha) under Section 34, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending since 2025. Held: petition disposed of; respondent no. 2 directed to decide the pending application in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks of production of a certified copy of the order, after ensuring service of notice on all respondents and opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, provided there is no other legal impediment.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 15456 of 2026

Bachu Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashish Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 36

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :-

¶13

"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Naib Tehsildar, District Mathura to decide the Restoration Case No.5460 of 2025 (Computerized Case No.T-202501500105460) filed in Mutation Case No.122 of 2023 (Bachu Singh Vs. Sukkha) under section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before Naib Tehsildar, Mathura within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above-mentioned application is pending consideration since 2025 and the same has not been decided till date. Learned counsel prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously.

¶15

Since the above-mentioned application is pending, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending.

¶16

In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the above-mentioned application, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after ensuring service of notice upon all the respondents and providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties provided there is no other legal impediment.

¶17

April 23, 2026 Rishabh

¶18

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bachu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt. Priti Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Bahadur Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sitara Singh Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Sukrullah vs Sub Divisional Magistrate and Another

Santosh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Shyam Vijay vs State of U.P. and 3 Others