Allahabad High Court
Vijay Shankar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 February, 2021
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4915 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vijay Shankar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Tripathy,Shobh Nath Pandey,Shrawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Kaushal Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey and learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents - State.
The petitioner instituted a mutation application dated 29.09.2019 in the case registered as Case No.887 of 2019 (Vijay Shankar Vs. Sitaram) under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before the respondent No.3-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj.
Sri Kaushal Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mutation application dated 29.09.2019 in the case registered as Case No.887 of 2019 (Vijay Shankar Vs. Sitaram) may be decided within a stipulated period of time. He calls attention to the order-sheet as well as Section 35(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and Rule 34(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 to contend that there is no good reason for inordinate delay in deciding the aforesaid proceeding.
Learned Standing Counsel in his usual fairness submits that the authorities are an under obligation of law to make all endeavours to decide the aforesaid proceeding as per the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 as well as Rules, 2016 framed thereunder.
The necessary facts for a disposal of the controversy are beyond the pale of dispute.
The application for mutation in the case registered as Case No.887 of 2019 (Vijay Shankar Vs. Sitaram) was filed on 29.09.2019 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
From perusal of the order-sheet, it is evident that the dates have been routinely fixed by the learned courts below. No effective hearing whatsoever has happened since the date of institution of the proceeding under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The court below has not only failed to discharge its statutory duties, but in light of the order-sheet, it appears that the callous disregard has been shown to the obligation imposed upon the Court by the statute.
No useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending or exchanging any pleadings.
In the wake of preceding discussion, the matter is remitted to the respondent No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj.
A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj, to execute the following directions:
(i) The respondent No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj shall decide the mutation application dated 29.08.2019 in the case registered as Case No.887 of 2019 (Vijay Shankar Vs. Sitaram) under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the petitioners (party concerned) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(ii) All necessary parties to the lis including the respondent No.4-Aneeta Devi shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed by the respondent No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj.
(iii) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate in the proceeding before the respondent No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj.
(iv) In case the parties do not cooperate in the proceeding before the respondent No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj, or adopt dilatory tactics, the respondent No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.
(v) The respondent No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.
(vi) In case an adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the respondent No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj, shall impose costs not below Rs. 5,000/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.
(vii) The respondent No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj, shall proceed on day to day basis, if required, to ensure that the above stipulated time line of three months for deciding the case is strictly adhered to.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Ashish Tripathi