The case is called out.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C.S.C. for the State.
The petition is presented on behalf of the petitioner who is applicant before the court of Tehsildar under the proceeding pending before it for mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006.
The copy of the writ petition is received in the office of learned C.S.C., learned A.C.S.C. on behalf of State is present. However, learned counsel for the petitioner though the matter is for direction against the State instrumentalities has not made State a party. The State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary (Revenue), U.P. Secretariat, Government of U.P., Lucknow being a necessary party be added in the course of the day.
In view of the proposed order, the opposite party no.2 need not be issued notice therefore service of notice upon the said private opposite party is dispense with.
The allegations as pleaded in the petition make it clear that the case is registered under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 which implies that the report of Kanoongo has already been placed on record and objections, if any also has come. Further, it is pleaded that once the matter has already been decided on 16.10.2012 but the contesting opposite party when moved an application for restoration, the same was allowed on 27.11.2014 and now pending since then for disposal in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to the mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 and rules made thereunder.
The typed copy of the order sheet provides that it is not only the presiding officer due to whom the case is pending but for most of the time learned counsels remain on strike, therefore, the case could not be taken up. Since learned counsel for the petitioner himself is a member of bar and might have been observing the call of the bar to go on strike, therefore, on his own part, the case can be said lingered for such a long time. However, the court with whom the matter is pending is also having bounden duty under the statute to decide the matter pending before it in accordance with the provision of law in the summary procedure as provided in the U.P. Land Revenue Code not beyond the prescribed time period of 45 days if the case is uncontested and if contested, then within a maximum period of 90 days. The case could have been decided on merit after hearing the parties or if not possible or if they are not co-operating then on the basis of materials available on record in accordance with the provisions of law but the same could not have been done so.
Therefore, the circumstances necessitate to issue direction so that the case pending since 16.10.2012 before the court of Tehsildar may be decided expeditiously between the statutory time limit or the time as provided by this Court. Learned A.C.S.C. would have no objections, if any such direction is passed to the court concerned to dispose of the case in accordance with law as sooner as possible within a specified period by the Court.
The opposite party no.1-Naib Tehsildar, Katra Bazar, Tehsil Colonelganj, District Gonda is directed to dispose of the aforesaid case under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act bearing no.T201208300500027 (Arvind Vs. Gopal Ji and others) within a reasonable period of three months from the date of certified copy of the order is produced before it after hearing the parties or if any of the party or the parties to the case or their advocates are not co-operating then in accordance with the provisions of law on the basis of facts, materials and evidences available on record.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Saurabh