Back
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Hamidul – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. , Lucknow – Respondent
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 proceedi
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
