Allahabad High Court
SHEERAZ ANJUMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court ordered the respondent to decide the pending mutation case within three months, thereby granting the writ of mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent to decide a mutation application (Case No. 303-392 of 2006, Sahid Ali v. Azeez Bano) under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which had been pending since 2006 despite several dates being fixed. The petitioner argued that the delay served no useful purpose and prayed for an expeditious decision. The Court, after hearing counsel, declined to opine on the merits of the underlying mutation case but ordered the respondent to decide it within three months of the certified copy of the order, ensuring service and hearing, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments. The direction was issued without any other legal impediment. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the mandated direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the revenue authority to decide a pending mutation application expeditiously.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 34
Subjects
- mandamus
- mutation
- U.P. Revenue Code
- administrative delay
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17439 of 2026
Sheeraz Anjum
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nishi Sengar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
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:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondent no.2 to decide the application
bearing Case no.303-392 of 2006 (Sahid Ali Vs. Azeez Bano),
Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dated 27.05.2005
within a short span of time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble
Court."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid
mutation case is pending since 2006. It is further contended that
several dates have been fixed but the same has not been decided
yet. He prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously.
4. No useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition
pending.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present
petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent
No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned case, in
WRIC No. 17439 of 2026
2
accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of
three 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 and
without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties provided that there is no other legal impediment.
May 5, 2026 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…