High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 10 AHC CK 0030

Hamidul vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 18 October 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anish Kumar Gupta, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Matters Under Article 227 No. 4850 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 367 words

Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

1.

Heard Mohd. Yasin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2.

The instant application has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Mutation Case No. T20160404021793 titled as Hamidul vs. Neeta Yadav under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, pending before respondent no.2-Tehsildar, Jalalpur, Tehsil- Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nargar, within a stipulated period of time.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Code, 2006, which is pending since 2016. Various opportunities have been granted to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 to file the objections. Despite that the objections had not been filed by the opposite party nos. 3 and 4, therefore, the matter could not be decided and more than eight years have been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the instant proceedings are being entrusted as per the provisions of Rule 34 Sub-clause (7), the instant proceedings ought to have been concluded within 90 days, however, more than eight years have been passed and proceedings could not be concluded. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction for expeditious disposal for the said mutation proceeding pending before respondent no.2- Tehsildar, Jalalpur, Tehsil- Jalalpur, District- Ambedkar Nargar.

4.

Learned Standing Counsel for the State does not oppose the prayer so made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.

In view of the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the private respondent nos.3 and 4 and keep the matter pending here, which will further delay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

6.

In view thereof, the instant petition is disposed of without adverting to the merits of the case with a direction to the respondent no.2- Tehsildar, Jalalpur, Tehsil- Jalalpur, to proceed in the matter expeditiously and make an endeavour to decide the said petition filed by the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of ninety days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.