Allahabad High Court
VINAY KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The High Court may issue mandamus directing the public authority to decide the pending case expeditiously when undue delay is evident.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent, a revenue officer, to decide a pending mutation case (case No. 6392 of 2022) arising under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Act, 2006. The petition alleged undue delay since 2022 despite several dates being fixed. The Court, after hearing counsel, noted that keeping the petition pending served no useful purpose. Without commenting on the merits of the mutation case, the Court disposed of the petition and ordered the respondent to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months of the certified copy of the order, after proper service and hearing, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments. The order thus mandates prompt disposal of the pending revenue matter.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the revenue officer to decide the pending mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Act, 2006?
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Act, 2006 — s. 34
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- mutation case
- U.P. Revenue Act
- delay
- public authority
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17730 of 2026
Vinay Kumar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Janardan Shukla, Nirendra
Mohan
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
commanding respondent No. 2 to decide the case No. 6392 of
2022 (Vinay Kumar Yadav V/s Kamal) having computer No.
T202205440206392 arising out U/s 34 U.P. Revenue Act
2006 relating Village Mathiya, Tappa- Parwarpar, Pargana-
Haveli, Tahsil Hata, District Kushinagar which is still
pending before him till date."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid
mutation case is pending since 2022. 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
WRIC No. 17730 of 2026
2
petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent
No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned case, 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 and
without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties provided that there is no other legal impediment.
May 6, 2026 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…