Sanjay Kumar vs Naib Tehsildar Mawai, Tehsil Rudauli, ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 17 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sanjay Kumar vs Naib Tehsildar Mawai, Tehsil Rudauli, ... on 16 January, 2026

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:3372
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 136 of 2026   
 
   Sanjay Kumar    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Naib Tehsildar Mawai, Tehsil Rudauli, Ayodhya And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Amit Srivastava   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.      

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent no.1.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondents are hereby dispensed with.

3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 1 to decide the mutation proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in Case No. 1631/2024 (Computerized No. T202404230701631) 'Sanjay Kumar Vs. Sahadev' despite the fact that the matter is pending since 15.04.2024, expeditiously preferably within a stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the recall application as well as mutation application is pending since 2024 and the order-sheet annexed by the petitioner is from 2024 which indicates that no proceedings could take place due to call for boycott of the local bar association. The facts which are evident from the order-sheet indicates that there is frequent call by the local bar association which in fact is deprecated by this Court considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45 and it is noticed that even the recall application as well as mutation application is not being considered and decided because of the call for boycott.

5. Such an action of the local bar association may amount to criminal contempt being a direct conflict with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court leave it open for the petitioner to invoke the said jurisdiction in case they are so legally advised.

6. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1/ Naib Tehsildar, Mawai, Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya to consider and decide the mutation proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in Case No. 1631/2024 (Computerized No. T202404230701631) 'Sanjay Kumar Vs. Sahadev', expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him in case there is no legal impediment and subject to cooperation of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes that petitioner shall appear on all the dates fixed before concerned authority irrespective of the call for boycott and in case any person creates impediment in appearance this Court grants him liberty to file an application for criminal contempt.

8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

9. The petitioner shall serve a copy of this order to the President and Secretary of local bar association for their compliance.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

January 16, 2026

Muk