HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5572 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 & 2. 2. In view of the order proposed, notice to Respondents No.3 & 4 is hereby dispensed with. 3. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia praying therein for the following relief: "(I) to issue order or direction, directing and commanding to opposite parties especially opposite party No. to expedite the Computerized Case No. 202404230304103, 'Gyan Chandra Maurya Vs. Vijay Kumar Dubey' under section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulate period in the ends of justice. (II) to issue any order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (III) to allow this petition with costs in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite parties." 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a case for mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been filed before the Tehsildar- Bikapur, District- Ayodhya on the basis of a registered Will Deed but the said case is pending since almost a year and has not been decided till date. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the legislature under Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 had provided that the undisputed mutation cases shall be decided within 45 days and the cases, where dispute exists, shall be decided within 90 days and if at all for some reasons, it is not possible to decide the cases within the fixed Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sandeep Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Gyan Chandra Maurya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) time limit then the authority concerned is bound to record the reasons in the order sheet but in the case of the petitioner, without recording any reason, the case is lying pending since almost a year. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has very fairly submitted that the ends of justice would be served, if a direction is issued by this Court thereby commanding Respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case in question, expeditiously, within the time frame fixed by this Court. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that the mutation case filed by the petitioner is pending before Respondent No.2 since almost a year. I further find that under Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, it is provided that the undisputed mutation cases shall be decided within 45 days and disputed ones shall be decided within 90 days and if, it is not possible to decide the cases in the said time limit then the authority concerned shall record reasons in the order sheet but in the present case, no such reasons are available in the order sheet of the case annexed with this petition. 8. Accordingly, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.2, i.e., Tehsildar, Tehsil- Bikapur, District- Ayodhya to consider and decide the Computerized Case No. 202404230304103, 'Gyan Chandra Maurya Vs. Vijay Kumar Dubey' under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him, provided that there is no legal impediment. 9. Needless to say that this Court has not adjudicated upon merits of the case. September 17, 2025 V. Sinha A227 No. 5572 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench