Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 50124 (ALL)

KAMTA PRASAD YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WRIC/14248/2025 · 2025-05-19

Manish Kumar Nigam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84458 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14248 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kamta Prasad Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Krishan Mishra,Rajendra Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "(A) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 to entertain the mutation case proposed to be filed by the petitioner on the basis of unregistered Will Deed dated 07.04.2024 and decide the same on the merit in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to parties. (B) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 to mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue record khatauni of entire property recorded in the name of Smt. Chanda Devi wife of the petitioner as per her will deed dated 07.04.2024 within stipulated period as directed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice." 3. The application filed by the petitioner is undated. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending and the petitioner may file appropriate application under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for mutating his name in the revenue records on the basis of will before respondent no. 3. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application before respondent no. 3 along with certified copy of this order within two weeks. 6. In case, such an application is moved by the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 is directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as well as opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad