Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 129813 (ALL)

SMT. LEELAVATI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND OTHERS

A227/1591/2025 · 2025-03-25

Saurabh Lavania

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16825 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1591 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Leelavati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:- "i. Issue order or direction to directing the Opposite Party no. 2 i.e., Tehsildar, Tehsil-Alapur, District-Ambedkar Nagar to decide the Case No. 1048/2024, Computerized Case No. T202404040401048, Leelavati Versus Valjor, filed U/s-34 U.P. Revenue Code 2006, pending in the Court of Tehsildar, Tehsil-Aalapur, District-Ambedkar Nagar, at the earliest with the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court." It is stated that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and being so, the same ought to have been decided expeditiously. It is further stated that in the Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 made under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the limitation has been prescribed for deciding the mutation case as per which the mutation proceedings, being summary in nature, ought to have been decided within 45 days if there is no dispute and if there is dispute, then the same should preferably be decided within 90 days. However, the proceedings which were initiated by the petitioner in the year March, 2024, have not been concluded till date. In these circumstances, the indulgence of this Court is required. The prayer is to expedite the said pending proceedings expeditiously. It is further submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided. Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.-1 to consider and decide the pending proceedings of Case No. 1048/2024, Computerized Case No. T202404040401048 (Leelavati Versus Valjor) most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the matter, 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 :- 25.3.2025 Jyoti/- Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench