Allahabad High Court
JITENDRA KUMAR SHUKLAversusSTATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court ordered the respondent to decide the pending mutation case within six months, effectively granting the writ of mandamus.
Summary
Petitioner Jitendra Kumar Shukla filed a writ petition under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, seeking a mandamus directing the respondent to decide Mutation Case No. 696 of 2022, which had remained pending since 2022 despite several dates being fixed. The petitioner argued that the undue delay violated his right to a timely decision. The Court observed that keeping the petition pending served no useful purpose and ordered the petition disposed. It directed the respondent to decide the mutation case expeditiously, preferably within six months of the certified copy of the order, after serving all parties and without unnecessary adjournments. The order thus compels the revenue authority to comply with the statutory time limit for mutation proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in deciding Mutation Case No. 696 of 2022 violates the statutory requirement under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the respondent to decide the pending mutation case within a specified period
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 35
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- mutation case
- U.P. Revenue Code
- delay
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17765 of 2026
Jitendra Kumar Shukla
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief:
"(i) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS direct the Respondent
No.2 to decide the Mutation Case No. 696 of 2022 (Jitendra Kumar Shukla Vs. smt.
Gulab Kali), Computerized No. T20240203030, under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that aforementioned case is
pending since 2022 and the same has not been decided despite several dates have been
fixed. He prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously.
4. In view of above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition
pending.
5. Accordingly, the present 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, 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
Nitika Sri.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…