Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 131255 (ALL)

PUSHPA MISHRA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND OTHERS

A227/1795/2025 · 2025-09-17

Manjive Shukla

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1795 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Brijendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3. 2. In view of the order proposed, notice to Respondent No. 4 is hereby dispensed with. 3. The captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia praying therein for the following relief:- "i) issue a writ, order or direction by directing the opposite party no.2 i.e. Tehsildar- Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh to decide the cases no- 1271/2022 filed by petitioner/applicant and cases no-1986/2022, 1987/2022 & 5597/2022 filed by OP No-3 before the court of Tehsildar- Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh, expeditiously, in the interest of justice." 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has filed a mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 bearing Case No. 1271 of 2022. It has further been contended that the mutation case of the petitioner has been connected with other mutation cases i.e. Case No. 1986 of 2022 and Case No. 1987 of 2022 and they are being heard together. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the mutation case filed by the petitioner was instituted in the year 2022 and since then the said case is pending and has not been disposed of. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijendra Chaudhary, Neeraj Kumar Singh, Shashi Kant Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Pushpa Mishra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the legislature itself in Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 had provided that the undisputed mutation cases are to be decided within a period of 45 days and in the cases of dispute, the mutation cases are to be disposed of within a period of 90 days and if not possible to do so, then authority concerned is under obligation to record reasons. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that no reason for non disposal of the mutation case of the petitioner has been recorded in the order-sheet and the matter is pending since 2022. 8. On the other hand, Sri Yogesh Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3 has very fairly submitted that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued by this Court commanding the Respondent No. 3 to hear and decide the mutation case of the petitioner and connected cases, expeditiously within a time frame fixed by this Court. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and I find that the mutation case filed by the petitioner bearing Case No. 1271 of 2022 has been connected with the Case No. 1986 of 2022 and Case No. 1987 of 2022 and is pending before Respondent no. 3 since 2022. I further find that Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 categorically provides that undisputed mutation cases are to be decided within a period of 45 days and in the event of there being any dispute, the cases are to be decided within a period of 90 days and ultimately if it is not possible to decide the cases in the provided time frame, then the authority concerned is under obligation to record reasons in the order-sheet. 10. I have seen the order-sheet of the mutation case, subject matter of the dispute, and I do not find any reason recorded by Respondent No. 3 for non disposal of the mutation case. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 3 to hear and decide the Case No. 1271 of 2022 and if possible along with the connected Case No. 1986 of 2022 and Case No. 1987 of 2022 , expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, provided there is no legal impediment. A227 No. 1795 of 2025 2 12. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the case. September 17, 2025 Anurag A227 No. 1795 of 2025 3 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench