CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Joomdhari – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Mr. Pradeep Singh, Counsel for respondent No.3 Gaon Sabha.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
3. Copy of the order sheet has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to 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 issue, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Rabertsganj, District-Sonbhadra to consider and decide the aforementioned case in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournme
The timely resolution of cases under the U.P. Revenue Code is mandatory, and failure to comply can lead to contempt charges against both revenue officers and Bar Association members.
Exhaustion of alternative remedies before seeking a writ of mandamus.
The court has the authority to direct the Sub Divisional Officer to decide a representation under Section 76(3) of U.P. Revenue Code within a specified time frame and in accordance with the law.
Availability of alternative remedy under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.