SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(All) 1943

Udai Narain Singh son of Patiraj Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
ANUJ KUMAR, Ashok Kumar Singh,

S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions have been conjoined for being heard as a composite case as the reliefs claimed therein are common i. e. by means of these three petitions, the common relief sought is to direct the respondent concerned to decide cases pending before them (in writ petition no. 63740 of 2005) since the year 1989, (in writ petition No. 64545 of 2005 and writ petition no. 64896 of 2005) since the year 2002.

( 2 ) IN the course of hearing of these petitions, learned Standing Counsel was called upon to seek instructions in relation to judicial working of the Collectors and the Commissioner and other officers performing functions under the Land Revenue Act and U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. In this connection, he was also enjoined to produce copy of circular or Government orders if any issued by the Government. Today Sri Sanjai Goswami apprised the Court that no such circular or government order is stated to have been issued prescribing fixed hours or days of the working of the revenue courts at par with regular courts of law. In view of above statement, it is essential to evaluate the working of the authorities who have been conferred power of performing

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top