Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1861 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ankita Singh Respondent :- Consilidation Officer And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Krishna Mohan Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel representing respondent-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. Ankita Singh, the writ petitioner, has approached this court for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-1 Consolidation Officer Sadar, District-Ballia to decide Case No.93 of 2017 (New no. 149 of 2020-21) (Ankita Singh Vs. Vijay Shanker) under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, within a time period fixed by this Court.
4. Record shows that recorded tenure holder namely Vijay Shanker Tiwari executed a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner during Consolidation Operations. On the basis of same, petitioner applied for mutation of her name, which came to registered as Case No. 93 of 2017 (New no. 149 of 2020-21) (Ankita Singh Vs. Vijay Shanker) under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Afore-mentioned case was filed by petitioner on 27.05.2017. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 4 years has rolled by from the date of filing of above mentioned case, same has not been decided till date. It is then submitted that non-disposal of application under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 filed by petitioner cannot be justified in any manner. He lastly invited attention of Court to the order sheet of above mentioned case and on basis thereof, he contends that delay in disposal of above noted mutation case is not attributable to petitioner. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for petitioner conteds that interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-1, Consolidation Officer Sadar, District- Ballia to decided above mentioned case within a time bound period. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for by petitioner is liable to be issued.
6. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 and 2 and upon perusal of material brought on record, this court finds that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this writ petition pending.
7. In view of above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent-1 Consolidation Officer Sadar, District-Ballia to decide Case No.93 of 2017 (New no. 149 of 2020-21) (Ankita Singh Vs. Vijay Shanker) under Section 12 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy/computer generated copy of this order, which shall be filed by petitioner in above mentioned case by means of a Notary Affidavit.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 YK