Allahabad High Court
MAYA DEVI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK SARAN
Holding
The Court directed the Sub‑Divisional Officer to decide the petitioner’s application within six months, effectively granting the mandamus relief for petitioner 1 while dismissing the petition for the other petitioners.
Summary
Maya Devi filed a writ petition along with three other petitioners seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to decide her application filed on 15 May 2025 under Section 76 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioners numbered 2, 3 and 4 withdrew their participation, and the court dismissed the petition as to them. No objection was raised by the State respondents to the relief sought for petitioner 1. The High Court ordered the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Tehsil Manjhanpur, to decide the application within six months of the certified copy of the order, subject to any legal impediment. The court also clarified that the dismissal of the petition against petitioners 2‑4 does not preclude any further legal action by the respondents. The writ petition was therefore disposed with the specified direction.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the State to decide an application under Section 76 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 within a stipulated time.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 76
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- Section 76
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- administrative delay
- withdrawal of petitioners
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 22169 of 2026
Maya Devi And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Yadava, Sanju Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C.
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not
want to press the present petition with regard to petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4.
2. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed insofar as
petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned.
3. Hence, the petition proceeds with regard to petitioner no.1 only.
4. Pursuant to the last order passed in the present petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel has furnished written instructions (non-dated) under the
signatures of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Manjhanpur, Kaushambi, the
same are taken on record.
5. The instant petition has been filed with the following relief:
"I) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing to the respondent no.4 to decide the Case under Section 76 U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously within stipulated period as fixed by the
Hon'ble High Court."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as such submits that the application
dated 15.05.2025 filed by the petitioner no.1, Maya Devi, be directed to
be decided within some time bound manner.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents does not have any
objection to the above prayer.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the
WRIC No. 22169 of 2026
2
respondent no.3/Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Manjhanpur, District
Kaushambi to decide the application of the petitioner dated 15.05.2025
within a period of six months of production of certified copy of this order
alongwith the self attested copy of the writ petition subject to there being
any legal impediment after hearing all the concerned parties.
9. It is however provided that dismissal of the writ petition against
petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 will not prevent the respondents from taking any
legal action as available under law.
September 23, 2026
Deepika
(Vivek Saran,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DEEPIKA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…