Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 108816 (ALL)

RAMANAND v. State of UP AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/39344/2024 · 2025-07-15

S Q H Rizvi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115046 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39344 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ramanand Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the Computer Case No. T202402250120618 within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding arising out of Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending for disposal since the year 2021. 4. It is noteworthy that Sub Rule 7 of Rule 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under: "............(7). The Tahsildar shall make an endeavour 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…..." 5. From the above quoted provision, the legislative mandate is very clear that if proceedings are not concluded within stipulated period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if the present writ petition be disposed of with the direction by this Court for expeditious disposal of the case within a time frame as to be fixed by this Court. 7. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent No. 3 is dispensed with. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending. 9. Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadr, district Fatehpur (respondent No. 2), before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to conclude the proceeding of mutation case No. T202402250120618 (Arvind Kumar vs. Bitan) under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 strictly in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments will be granted to either of the parties and any adjournment, if prayed for, may be granted only in exceptional circumstances. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Sumaira Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad