Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 572 (ALL)

Ram Janak v. State Of U. P.

2019-03-01

J.J.MUNIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has come up with the following material relief: (a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2/Tehsildar, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti to decide the Case No. 595/835/596/836/740, (Barkhu and others vs. Ram Asare), u/s 34 L.R. Act of village Dhenugawan Khurd, Tappa Sikandarpur, Pargana Amodha, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti, pending before him, within stipulated period which Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Narsingh Pandey submits that the proceedings of this mutation case are pending since 2004. He has pointed out that during this long period of time, the case lost track because of being decided ex parte and then that order being set aside. It led to some revisions being filed but all that done, the mutation case is lingering on since the year 2004, which the learned counsel submits is required to be decided expeditiously. 4. The Submission is that on account of a non decision of his application for mutation, the petitioner is suffering serious prejudice. He further submits that the Tehsildar is duty bound to decide his mutation application expeditiously. Mutation proceedings are summary proceedings. Moreover, they are fiscal in nature and, therefore, the interest of the State is also involved in an early decision of all mutation cases. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the order sheet of the case from 06.05.2015 to 19.01.2019. A reading of the said ordersheet shows that except for certain orders like those passed on 06.05.2015, 20.05.2015, 27.08.2015, 09.09.2015, 16.09.2015, 26.03.2016, 29.11.2017 and 5.2.2018, the case has been adjourned with an order by the Mutation Authority, disclosing the least application of mind. Most of the orders read, for the sake of illustration: "6.8.2015 Samanya Tithi 03.08.2015 Niyat Ho". The order sheet is replete with these kind of orders traversing years of pendency of the case, apart from equally unworthy causes of adjournment, like the presiding officer being busy in another office, or the learned Members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work. The case has been pending over a period of about 14 years by now. 6. The order sheet is replete with these kind of orders traversing years of pendency of the case, apart from equally unworthy causes of adjournment, like the presiding officer being busy in another office, or the learned Members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work. The case has been pending over a period of about 14 years by now. 6. The Mutation Authority cannot be permitted to abdicate its functions and indulge in a rubber stamp adjournment of the case year after year, much to the prejudice of not only the parties, who seek mutation, but as said earlier, the interest of the State in its Revenue Department. It may be mentioned here that the provisions of Rule 34(7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, framed under Section 35(1) of the Revenue Code, read as under:- "(7) The Tehsildar shall make an endeavour 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 within the period of 90 days and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period, the reason for the same shall be recorded." 7. A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that the outermost time limit for the Tehsildar to decide a contested mutation case is 90 days. In a case where he crosses the aforesaid time limit, he has to record reasons for the delay which, in the instant case, has not at all been done. Rather, as already recorded, the ordersheet shows utter apathy to any concern by the Tehsildar for an early decision of the mutation case. That is in breach of the provisions of Rule 34(7) (Supra), which the law does not countenance. A statutory rule of the kind carried in Rule 34(7) of the Rules framed under the Code cannot be left to the whims of the Tehsildar bound under it to decide by a determinate calendar. If it were allowed to continue the way the Tehsildar has casually kept the mutation case pending in this matter for the last 14 years, the provisions of Rule 34(7) (Supra) would be bogged down and will ultimately become rudimentary by disuse. This cannot be permitted to happen. 8. Looking to the nature of the order proposed to be passed, no notice is being issued to respondent nos. 4 and 5. This cannot be permitted to happen. 8. Looking to the nature of the order proposed to be passed, no notice is being issued to respondent nos. 4 and 5. In case, however, they have any grievance in the matter, they may make an application in the decided matter. 9. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the long pendency and the manner in which the case has so far proceeded, it is ordered that the Tehsildar,, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti shall proceed to decide the case No. 595/835/596/836/7400, Barkhu and others vs. Ram Asare, under Section 34 L.R. Act within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, positively and without fail. 10. This writ petition is allowed in terms of the above order.