Shyamnath Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shyamnath Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the authorities to take up and decide the petitioner's application dated 04.07.2025 (Section 34, U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006) on its own merits strictly in accordance with law, preferably within three months; that direction was subsequently kept in abeyance till the next date of listing, with the matter listed fresh on 04.02.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the revenue authorities should be directed to take up and decide the petitioner's application dated 04.07.2025 filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously and on its own merits.

Court's answer

Invoking Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and the submissions of counsel, the Court directed the authorities to take up the said application and dispose of it on its own merits strictly in accordance with law most expeditiously and preferably within three months, without granting unnecessary adjournments unless there is no legal impediment.

Ratio / Principle

Upon being informed by counsel for the private parties that the order had been obtained by concealment, the Court kept its paragraph-4 direction in abeyance till the next date of listing.

Key takeaways

The Court considered that no useful purpose would be served by putting the private respondent to notice, while expressly reserving the private respondent's right to seek modification or variation of the order if aggrieved.obiter¶2
The Court made clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions.obiter¶6
The matter was directed to be put up as fresh on 04.02.2026, showing the name of Sri P.C. Pandey, Advocate (Roll No. A/P 0524/2012).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.) disposed of a writ petition in which counsel for the petitioner had confined his prayer to a decision on his application dated 04.07.2025 filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006. Taking note of sub-rule (7) of Rule 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — under which the Tahsildar is to endeavour to decide undisputed mutation cases within 45 days and disputed mutation cases within 90 days, recording reasons for delay — the Court directed the authorities to take up the application and dispose of it on its own merits strictly in accordance with law, most expeditiously and preferably within three months, without unnecessary adjournments absent legal impediment. Notice to the private respondent was dispensed with, the respondent's right to seek modification being reserved, and the Court expressly recorded no opinion on the merits. Subsequently, on counsel for the private parties informing the Court that the order had been obtained by concealment, the paragraph-4 direction was kept in abeyance and the matter listed fresh on 04.02.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 42666 of 2025

Shyamnath Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

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

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only to decide the application dated 04.07.2025 filed under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006.

In view of the order proposed to be passed herein, no useful purpose would be served by putting the private respondent to notice and keeping this petition pending before this Court. However, in case the private respondent feels aggrieved by the order his/her right to seek modification/variation of the order is being kept reserved.

Sub-rule (7) of Rules 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016,

"(7). The Tahsildar shall make an endeavor to decide the undisputed case of mutation within the period of 45 days from the date of the registration of the case and the disputed case of mutation within the period of 90 days and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reason for the same shall be recorded.

In the teeth of the said provision and also in the light of the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, a direction is being issued to the authorities to take up the said application and dispose of the same on its own merits strictly in accordance with law most expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months but without granting unnecessary adjournment unless there is no legal impediment.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions.

WRIC No. 42666 of 2025

2

After the aforesaid order was passed, it is informed by Sri P.C Pandey, learned counsel for the private parties that by way of concealment, the order has been obtained from this Court.

In this view of the matter, direction given by this Court in paragraph 4 of this order shall kept in abeyance till the next date of listing.

Put up as fresh on 04.02.2026 showing the name of Sri P.C. Pandey, Advocate having Advocate Roll No.A/P 0524/2012.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

January 22, 2026

saqlain

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad