IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Hamidul – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No.4850 of 2024
Decided on : 18-10-2024
(A) Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 34 - Mutation Case - The petitioner sought expeditious disposal of a pending mutation case since 2016, asserting that the proceedings should have concluded within 90 days as per Rule 34 Sub-clause (7) - The State's counsel did not oppose the request for expeditious resolution. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Court's Direction - The court directed the Tehsildar to expedite the proceedings and decide the case preferably within ninety days from the order's certified copy, without addressing the merits of the case. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Code, 2006, pending for over eight years due to the opposite parties' failure to file objections.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the Tehsildar to proceed expeditiously with the case, aiming for resolution within ninety days.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in the mutation proceedings and the need for timely resolution as per statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely disposal of cases as mandated by law, directing the Tehsildar to act promptly.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
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.
The court emphasized the necessity for timely resolution of mutation cases under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, directing the Tehsildar to expedite proceedings.
The timely resolution of cases under the U.P. Revenue Code is mandatory, and failure to comply can lead to contempt charges against both revenue officers and Bar Association members.
Mutation in cases of succession or transfer - On receipt of a report under section 33 or section 34, or upon facts otherwise coming to his knowledge, Tahsildar shall issue a proclamation and make suc....
Delay in filing a mutation application raises doubts about its legitimacy, especially when previous claims have already been adjudicated and dismissed.
The court established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.