Singarmati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Singarmati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the authorities to decide the pending application (Case No.1099 of 2024, Computerized Case No.T202405440201099) on its own merits strictly in accordance with law most expeditiously, preferably within three months from production of a certified copy of the order, without unnecessary adjournments unless there is no legal impediment; no opinion expressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ direction should issue to respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Hata, District Kushinagar, to decide the pending application (Case No.1099 of 2024, Computerized Case No.T202405440201099) under sub-rule (7) of Rule 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 expeditiously within the time-bound period prescribed by that provision.

Court's answer

Sub-rule (7) of Rule 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 mandates that upon such an application being filed, the authority concerned is required to dispose of it within a time-bound period strictly in accordance with law; the reproduced provision fixes 45 days for undisputed mutation cases and 90 days for disputed mutation cases, with reasons to be recorded if the proceeding is not concluded within such period.

Ratio / Principle

A direction is issued to the authorities to take up the pending application and dispose of it on its own merits strictly in accordance with law most expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, without granting unnecessary adjournments unless there is no legal impediment.

Key takeaways

Since no useful purpose would be served by putting the private respondent to notice and keeping the petition pending, notice was dispensed with; the private respondent's right to seek modification/variation of the order is kept reserved.ratio¶7
The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.; decision dated March 18, 2026) disposed of WRIT - C No. 9095 of 2026 (Singarmati v. State of U.P. and 4 others). The petitioner sought a direction to respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Hata, District Kushinagar, to decide Case No.1099 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.T202405440201099) — an application under sub-rule (7) of Rule 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 pending since long — expeditiously. Reproducing Rule 34(7), which requires the Tahsildar to endeavour to decide undisputed mutation cases within 45 days and disputed mutation cases within 90 days of registration, recording reasons otherwise, 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, preferably within three months of production of a certified copy of the order, without granting unnecessary adjournments unless there is no legal impediment. Notice to the private respondent was dispensed with, with liberty reserved to seek modification/variation of the order. The Court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits of the rival submissions.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 9095 of 2026

Singarmati

	Versus		.....P	etitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 4 Others			.....Res	pondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashutos Laxmi Kumari	h Kumar Shankar	Gupta, Yadav,	Avinash, Sushama
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 6

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the record.

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.

The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to direct the respondent no.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil-Hata, District Kushinagar to decide Case No.1099 of 2024, Computerized Case No.T202405440201099 as expeditiously.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application filed under sub-rule (7) of Rules 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, is pending since long. At this stage it would be apt and appropriate to note sub-rule (7) of Rules 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which mandates that upon such an application being filed, the authority concerned would be required to dispose of the same within time bound period strictly in accordance with law. 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

WRIC No. 9095 of 2026

2

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 from the date of production of certified copy of this order 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.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

March 18, 2026

Pramod Tripathi

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad