AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 364 wordsPankaj Purohit, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the indulgence of this Court for a direction to respondent No.2 to decide his mutation application expeditiously, which according to him, is pending since 2013.
The facts of the case are that Sh. Debendra Prasad Joshi-father of the petitioner was the owner of the property in-question situated at Jubilee Villa, Tallital Cantt, Nainital. After his death, petitioner, who was in possession of the house, moved a mutation application to the respondent No.2 for mutating the said property in his name. Respondent No.2 sought NOCs by the other legal heirs of the deceased Debendra Prasad Joshi, father of the petitioner and according to the petitioner, those NOCs were submitted by him to respondent No.2 way back in the year 2013. But, till date, no mutation order has been issued by the respondent No.2.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid inaction, petitioner is before this Court by filing present writ petition, seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to take immediate decision on the mutation application moved by him.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 submits that the relinquishment deed was asked from the petitioner, but, no such relinquishment deed on the part of the other legal heirs of deceased Debendra Prasad Joshi has been submitted, therefore, mutation application could not have been decided. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the statement of relinquishment-deed by the other legal heirs of the deceased Debendra Prasad Joshi was not required, as NOCs of other legal heirs have already been submitted by the petitioner in the year 2013 and the mutation application should be decided accordingly.
Be that as it may. Without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the mutation application dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure No.1) moved by the petitioner, by a reasoned and speaking order, as early as possible but not later than three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
In view of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of.