Allahabad High Court
SAHABAJ CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court directed the respondent to decide the pending case within six months, effectively granting the writ of mandamus.
Summary
Petitioner Sahabaj Chauhan filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent, a revenue officer, to decide a pending case (RST/5773/2025) under sections 34 and 209(ज) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner argued that the case had been pending since 2025 despite multiple dates being fixed, causing undue delay. The Court examined whether it could issue a direction to expedite the hearing of the pending case. Finding no merit in keeping the writ petition pending, the Court ordered the respondent to decide the case within six months, after service of the order, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments. The petition was consequently disposed of with the mandated direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing a revenue officer to decide a pending case expeditiously under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 209 (ज), 34
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- expeditious hearing
- U.P. Revenue Code
- administrative law
- court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17496 of 2026
Sahabaj Chauhan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief:
"1. To, Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the
respondent no.2 to decide the Case No.RST/5773/2025 bearing computerize Case No.
T 202505200105773 (Ranu Chauhan Versus Mitthoo) under section 34/209 (ज) of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as expeditiously as possible preferably by way of day to day
hearing within stipulated period."
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that aforementioned case is
pending since 2025 and the same has not been decided despite several dates have been
fixed. He prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously.
4. In view of above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition
pending.
5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to
respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned case, in accordance with
law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite
parties, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal
impediment.
May 5, 2026
Nitika Sri.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…