Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
: Mr. Kousik Datta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, G.A. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD ORDER
19.06.2024 This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders, direction/ directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondent No.2 to complete the proceeding in case No. Rev. 500 of 2017 u/s 95 of TLR & LR Act, 1960 within three months. And (ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondent No. 2 to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or order/orders, direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby to call for the records pertaining to the instant writ petition from the custody of the Respondents and make the Rules absolute after hearing the both sides And (iii) Make the Rules absolute after hearing the Parties……….
[2] Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Perused the record. [3] It is seen from record that a revenue proceeding between the petitioner and unofficial respondents is pending before the respondent No.2 since
2017. The petitioner filed a representation dated 10.05.2024 for disposing of the application under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 but, no action has been taken from the end of respondent No.2 till date. [4] Thus, without going into the merits of this case, since the case of the petitioner is pending before the respondent No.2 from 2017, this Court directs the concerned respondents to dispose of the case of the petitioner in the light of his representation dated 10.05.2024 as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order as per procedure by observing that reasonable opportunity be given to both the sides. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall also stand closed. JUDGE Sabyasachi. G. SABYASACHI GHOSH GHOSH
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.