Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 94893 (ALL)

LALITA DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

WRIC/32021/2025 · 2025-09-14

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32021 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "(A) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the Respondents 03 to amend and maintain the record of rights (Khatauni) in the name of the petitioner as legal heir and wife of Late Ram Bhawan son of Jamuna in respect to the lands of Gata No.28,101,27,87 area 0.067 hecteyar, 96 area 0.616 hecteyar and 197 area 0.414 hecteyar situated in Village-Murarpur, Mutlike- Babhanauli, Tehsil-Madhuban of District-Mau, оп account of the order dated 02.05.2015 passed under पक 11 ख by the revenue authority as well as in view of the order and decree dated 20.10.2021 and 16.12.2021 passed by the learned court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.04, Mau in Original Suit No.900575/2015, Lalita Devi versus Meena and 04 others and order and decree dated 10.12.2021 and 24.12.2021 passed by the learned court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.04, Mau in Original Suit No.900574/2015, Lalita Devi versus Meena and 04 others and in accordance with law. (B) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the Respondent No.03 to decide the Suit No. 4160 of 2024, Computerized Suit No. T202415510304160 inre Meena Devi Versus Ram Bhawan, filed under Section-34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the applications dated 07.01.2022 preferred by the petitioner in the same suit well within the stipulated period as directed by this Hon'ble Court and in accordance with law." 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing the first prayer made in the writ petition and is only confining to the second prayer. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that mutation application was moved in the year 2024 which is pending consideration. The sole prayer made in the writ petition is for expeditious disposal of the same. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod Narayan Yadav, Yogendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Lalita Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) 3. This Court on 02.07.2025 had required Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General to get instructions from State Government as to why petitions in such a large number are being filed in this Court for expediting mutation proceedings. 4. Pursuant to query made by this Court, learned Additional Advocate General placed before the Court the circular issued by State Government on 09.07.2025 wherein a direction has been issued by State Government to all Collectors of the State requiring Tehsildars and Sub Divisional Officers of the Tehsil and Division to conclude the mutation proceedings within the time period prescribed under the Code. 5. This Court requires that each and every Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer of the State should immediately comply the directions issued by State Government and in case the mutation applications are kept pending and are not decided within the time frame as provided under the Circular dated 09.07.2025 or as provided under the Code, 2006 or directed by this Court, it would amount to civil contempt under Section 2(e) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Without any further direction, the officer will be held disobedient of the order of this Court and would be guilty of contempt. 6. In view of said fact, respondent no. 3 is hereby directed to conclude the proceedings of Mutation Case No. 4160 of 2024, Computerized Suit No. T202415510304160 (Meena Devi vs. Ram Bhawan) positively within a period of three months, from the date of production of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law, after hearing all the affected parties. 7. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits. September 15, 2025 V.S.Singh WRIC No. 32021 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad