Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36113 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kailashi Devi Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahabir Yadav,Sanjay Singh Gaharwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.B. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner is before this Court with the request to command the Tehsildar, Tehsil Farenda, District Maharajganj (fourth respondent) to decide the Case No.65/89/2006-07, Computer Case no.T20070547416 of 2013-14 (Kiran Sharma vs. Mst. Ramrati) filed under Section 34/35 of L.R. Act, expeditiously.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid proceeding has been ... once the petitioner has purchased the Arazi no.1152 area 0- 2960 hectare situated in Village Khairati, District Maharajganj (half share of the land) and thereafter the mutation case has been preferred for mutating her name in the revenue records and as such, it is submitted that the aforesaid proceeding is pending since 2006 and the same may be decided expeditiously.
Shri B.B. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel very fairly submits that in case the aforesaid proceeding is still pending consideration, the same would be decided expeditiously without any further delay.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, on consent, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Tehsildar, Tehsil Farenda, District Maharajganj (fourth respondent) to expedite the hearing of the aforesaid case and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost but certainly after according opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders in the matter. It is made clear that in case the same is not finalized within the time stipulated by this Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer contempt proceeding against the officer concerned.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 A. Pandey