AKLEEMUDDIN v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND OTHERS
A227/2037/2025 · 2025-04-11
Saurabh Lavania
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 133262 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 133262 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20556 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2037 of 2025 Petitioner :- Akleemuddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neera Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that inadvertently the proper necessary opposite party could not be arrayed in the memo of petition and as such she may be permitted to implead the proper opposite party. Learned State Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to implead the necessary opposite party during the course of the day. 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):-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the opposite party No. 2 i.e. the Tehsildar Rudauli, Pargana & Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya to expeditiously decide the Computerized case no. T202404230701165 (Mohammad Kaleem and others Versus Dilshad Husain) Under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code 2006, pending before the opposite party No. 2 since 22.02.2024, according to law within time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court." Considering the fact that the case in issue relates to mutation and as per Rule 34(7) of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 made under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, 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, in the instant case, the proceedings for mutation are pending since February 2024, this Court is of the view that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the present petition pending.
In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the Case No. T202404230701165 (Mohammad Kaleem and others Versus Dilshad Husain) most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party 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 :- 11.4.2025/Jyoti/- Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench