RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ RAJENDER SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND OTHERS
A227/2166/2025 · 2025-04-17
Saurabh Lavania
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 124539 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 124539 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21655 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2166 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Singh @ Rajender Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Yadav,Virendra Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-
"I. Issue an order or direction to the opposite party no.3 to decide and dispose of the Application/Case No.: 182/2024 of the petitioner filed by him before the opposite party no. 3 for mutation of his name in the revenue records against the properties of his real brother Arjun Singh, on the basis of inheritance, at the earliest in the interest of justice, which is contained as Annexure No. 1 to this petition."
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application in issue, annexed as Annexure No.1, was moved by the petitioner before the opposite party no.-3/ Assistant Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, Ayodhya, for getting his name mutated in the revenue records related to Gata No. 726/0.060, 728/0.038, 742/0.231, 1109/1.464, 1141/0.029, 1162/0.047 of Khat No. 18, situated in Village-Chirauli, Pargana-Khandasa, Tehsil-Milkipur, District-Ayodhya. It would be apt to indicate that the land, detailed above, as per record available, was recorded in the name of Arjun Singh. The case of the petitioner is to the effect that petitioner is real brother of Arjun Singh, since dead, and accordingly, his name is to be indicated in the revenue records. In response to the aforesaid application, one Anarkali has filed the objection dated 23.11.2012 and reply to the same has already been filed by the present petitioner, but till date the application in issue, has not been decided. Considering the aforesaid, particularly the period of pendency of the application in issue, which appears to be pending since 2012, the present petition is disposed of with direction to opposite party no.3 to consider and decide the pending proceedings in issue, detailed in the prayer clause, most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed before it, if possible and if there is no other legal impediment in this regard. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Jyoti/- Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench