Allahabad High Court

WRIC/29559/2026 of AMEENA KHATOON AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 7 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 29559 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri P.C. Yadav, learned counsel, holding the brief of Sri Roop Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned standing counsel for the

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 29559 of 2026

Court No. - 37

HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. Heard Sri P.C. Yadav, learned counsel, holding the brief of Sri Roop Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction issued in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.2/Tehsildar, Padrona, Kushinagar to decide the pending proceeding of mutation case bearing Case No.460 of 2026 (Computerized No.T202605440100460) (Ameena Khatoon and Another vs. Ali Hussain), under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending since 6.1.2026, within the stipulated period."

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before respondent no.2/Tehsildar since 6.1.2026. He placed the case summary annexed along with the writ petition in order to demonstrate that the case is not proceeding expeditiously.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2 to decide the aforesaid proceedings to its logical conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in accordance with law. October 8, 2026 C.Prakash Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Roop Shandilya, Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Ameena Khatoon And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead