HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3360 of 2026 Diwakar Pandey .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 4 HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Girish Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 2 and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for the following relief: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased, to issue order or direction, thereby directing to the opposite party No. 2, who may decide mutation Application Computerize Case No. T202504230701706, U/S 34, U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (Diwakar Pandey Vs. Hari Prasad) related to the property situated in Village Shuklapur, Paragana and Tehsil-Rudauli ,District-Ayodhya, pending before the O.P. No. 2, with in stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, as the said case is pending for disposal since 04.02.2025 before him." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending for disposal since 2025 before the respondent No. 2. 4. Sub Rule 7 of Rule 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under:

"…...(7). The Tahsildar 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..." A227 No. 3360 of 2026 2 5. A plain reading of the aforesaid rule manifests the express and unequivocal legislative intent that proceedings are required to be concluded within the stipulated period of time and in the event of delay, the authority concerned is obligated to record reasons for the same. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection if a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the case within stipulated period as to be fixed by this Court. 7. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the issuance of notice upon the respondent No.3 is dispensed with. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

9. Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the parties present, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the instant petition with a direction to Tehsildar (Judicial) Rudauli, Tehsil-Rudauli, District Ayodhya, before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide mutation application the Case No.1706/2025, Computerized Case No. T202504230701706, (Diwakar Pandey versus Hari Prasad) pending under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned order on merit, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned; expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments will be granted to either of the parties and any adjournment, if prayed for, may be granted only in exceptional circumstances. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) June 3, 2026 Manoj K. Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench