HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5529 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1. 2. In view of the order proposed, notice to Respondents No.2 and 3 is hereby dispensed with. 3. The captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia praying therein for the following relief:- "i) Direct the opposite party no.1 i.e. Naib Tehsildar, Milkipur, Tehsil- Milkipur, District- Ayodhya to decide the Case No.2067/2025, Computerized case No.T- 202504230402067, namely Nikhil Singh V/s Smt. Kanti Singh, under section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, relating to Village-Gauhaniya, Pargana- Khandasa, Tehsil-Milkipur, District-Ayodhya expeditiously within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble court, in the interest of justice." 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of the registered sale-deed, the case for mutation has been filed by the petitioner bearing Case No.2067/2025, Computerized case No.T-202504230402067, namely Nikhil Singh V/s Smt. Kanti Singh before Respondent No. 1. It has further been contented that the aforesaid mutation case is pending since the year 2025 and has not been decided till date. 5. 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Nikhil Singh .....Petitioner(s) Naib Tehsildar, Milkipur, Tehsil Milkipur, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s) period of 90 days and if not possible to do so, then authority concerned is under obligation to record reasons. 6. 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 the year 2025. 7. On the other hand, Sri Yogesh Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has very fairly submitted that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued by this Court commanding the Respondent No. 1 to hear and decide the mutation case, within a time frame fixed by this Court. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that the mutation case is pending before Respondent No. 1 since the year 2025. I further find that Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 categorically provides that the 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 decided the said cases in the time frame then the authority concerned is under obligation to record reasons in the order-sheet 9. I have seen the order-sheet of the mutation case, subject matter of the petition, and I do not find any reason recorded by Respondent No. 1 for non disposal of the mutation case. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 1 to hear and decide the Case No.2067/2025, Computerized case No.T-202504230402067, Nikhil Singh V/s Smt. Kanti Singh, 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. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on the merits of the case. September 16, 2025 Anurag A227 No. 5529 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench