Allahabad High Court
SINGARMATIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
The Court directed the Tehsildar to dispose of the pending mutation application within three months, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Tehsildar of Hata Tehsil, Kushinagar, to expeditiously decide a pending mutation application (Case No. 1099 of 2024). The petitioner argued that under sub‑rule (7) of Rule 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the Tehsildar must dispose of undisputed mutation cases within 45 days and disputed cases within 90 days, and that the application had been pending for an unreasonable period. The Court noted that putting the private respondent on notice would serve no useful purpose and reserved the right of any aggrieved private respondent to seek modification of the order. Accordingly, the Court directed the Tehsildar to decide the application on its merits within three months of the order, without unnecessary adjournments, and clarified that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the case. The writ petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tehsildar should be directed to decide the pending mutation application within the time limits prescribed under U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.
- Whether the Court can issue such a direction without hearing the private respondent.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 34(7)
Subjects
- mutation
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
- Tehsildar
- writ petition
- time bound disposal
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 9095 of 2026
Singarmati
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Gupta, Avinash,
Laxmi Shankar Yadav, Sushama
Kumari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
respondent-State and perused the record.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed herein, no useful purpose
would be served by putting the private respondent to notice and keeping
this petition pending before this Court. However, in case the private
respondent feels aggrieved by the order his/her right to seek
modification/variation of the order is being kept reserved.
3. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to
direct the respondent no.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil-Hata, District Kushinagar to
decide Case No.1099 of 2024, Computerized Case
No.T202405440201099 as expeditiously.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application
filed under sub-rule (7) of Rules 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016, is pending since long. At this stage it would be apt and appropriate
to note sub-rule (7) of Rules 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016,
which mandates that upon such an application being filed, the authority
concerned would be required to dispose of the same within time bound
period strictly in accordance with law. Sub-rule (7) of Rules 34 of the
U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016,
"(7). The Tahsildar shall make an endeavor to decide the
undisputed case of mutation within the period of 45 days from the
date of the registration of the case and the disputed case of mutation
WRIC No. 9095 of 2026
2
within the period of 90 days and if the proceeding is not concluded
within such period the reason for the same shall be recorded.
5. In the teeth of the said provision and also in the light of the submissions
made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, a direction is
being issued to the authorities to take up the said application and dispose
of the same on its own merits strictly in accordance with law most
expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the
date of production of certified copy of this order but without granting
unnecessary adjournment unless there is no legal impediment.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the rival submissions.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
March 18, 2026
Pramod Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
PRAMOD TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…