Back
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL
Daya Shankar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhinav Jaiswal, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to decide the proceeding of Case No. 03108 of 2020 (Daya Shankar vs. Tilakdhari and Others), Computerized Case No. T-202015060303108 filed under Section-116 of UP Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code, 2006'), pending before respondent no. 2.
3. This Court found that number of petitions are being filed in this Court simply for seeking direction to expedite the proceedings pending before the revenue court/Authority.
4. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ayodhya Sahai vs. District Judge, Jaunpur and Others, (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1677 after considering a similar issue and after taking into account the provision of C.P.C. as well as Cr.P.C. has observed that all suits, criminal trials and other kind of cases must be decided on the basis of a time bound programme and also issued a general mandamus in Paragraph-12 to all the Sub-ordi
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.
The court emphasized the necessity for timely resolution of mutation cases under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, directing the Tehsildar to expedite proceedings.
The court established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
The U.P. Revenue Code's provisions regarding appeals are self-contained and govern the necessity of filing documents, overriding general procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The court emphasized that delays in filing appeals should be condoned to ensure substantial justice, overriding technical limitations.
The right to appeal or revise under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, remains intact for suits filed before the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing that such rights are substant....
The right to avail the remedy of revision under Section 333 of the Act of 1950 survives the repeal of the Act of 1950 and, therefore, the revision is maintainable.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
