Allahabad High Court
Avadhesh Kumar And Others vs District Magistrate, Lko. And Others on 9 September, 2022
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 20 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2841 of 2022 Petitioner :- Avadhesh Kumar And Others Respondent :- District Magistrate, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. As we are celebrating 75 Years of our Independence which has been celebrated with much fanfare across the country under the aegis of "75 Years of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsov", but at the same time, this Court is pained to take note of the instant petition whereby the petitioners have approached this Court alleging violation of their fundamental right to access justice.
2. Rule of law is meaningless unless there is access to justice for the common people. Access to justice is one of the constitutionally recognized human and fundamental right. Access to justice means to reach justice easily by legal proceedings in appropriate time. Delivery of justice should be impartial and non-discriminatory. State to take all necessary steps to provide fair, transparent, effective, and accountable service that promotes access to justice for all.
3. It is in the backdrop of Constitutional vision that the facts of the present case requires to be evaluated.
4. The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow to register their case instituted by them under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, "the Code of 2006") pending since 21.04.2022.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that they are tenure-holder of land 391 with an area measuring 1.3338 hectares situate in Village Dehramau, Pargana and Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. The petitioners have further stated that in order to get their boundaries properly demarcated, they moved an application in terms of Section 24 of the Code of 2006 and had also deposited the requisite fee of Rs.1,000/- on 29.04.2022. It is also alleged in the petition that though after submitting the said application, it was forwarded to the Tehsildar, Mohanlalganj, who further is stated to have forwarded the application to the Revenue Inspector and Lekhpal, but till date, no proceedings have commenced.
6. It has also been pointed out that demarcation proceedings are summary in nature and more than four months have lapsed and the case of the petitioners has yet not been registered.
7. It has specifically been stated in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition that the Revenue Inspector and the Lekhpal are harassing the petitioners and the application for demarcation is pending since 21.04.2022, but till date, no action has been taken. It is also stated that the petitioners moved another application to the District Magistrate, Lucknow on 23.07.2022 by post as the first application of the petitioners was not evoking any response.
8. It is further stated that the petitioners made a complaint on the public portal but still no action was taken and being disillusioned with the system, the petitioners knocked the doors of this Court bringing it to the notice regarding the injustice being suffered and the basic rights of the petitioners to have access to justice has been deprived.
9. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs, which read as under:-
"i. Direct opposite party No.2 i.e. Up-Ziladhikari, Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow to decide the Case under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before him since 21.04.2022; Avadhesh Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others, expeditiously preferably within stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
ii. Issue any other order or direction in the nature and manner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iii. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners."
10. This Court on 08.08.2022 had required the petitioners to indicate the case number of the proceedings which was filed by them.
11. In compliance of the said order, the petitioners had filed a supplementary affidavit dated 10.08.2022, wherein in Paragraphs 3 to 5, it was stated that the respondents have not even registered the case of the petitioners. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioners have filed the status report, which is available online, however, it has also stated that the case of the petitioners has been entered in the Register at S.No.138 dated 02.05.2022, but till date, neither any case has been registered nor any order-sheet has been drawn. No case number has been allotted and in this view of the matter, this Court on 31.08.2022 had passed the following order, which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In compliance of the order dated 08.08.2022, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit wherein in paragraph 3 it is stated that despite having moved an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- also having been deposited on 29.04.2022 yet the case has not been registered nor any action has been taken thereon. The allegations as well as the averments made in the affidavit is of a serious nature.
Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel as well as the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall seek specific instructions and inform the Court as to why the aforesaid case as filed by the petitioner has yet not been registered.
List this matter again on 06th September, 2022, as fresh on which date an affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2 shall be filed indicating why the said case has not been registered."
12. To the surprise of the Court, despite a clear order dated 31.08.2022, learned standing counsel did not file the affidavit as he was required and had further sought a week's time. This request for time was rejected and the matter was directed to be listed on 09.09.2022 by means of the order dated 06.09.2022. The order dated 06.09.2022 for clear appraisal of the issue is being reproduced hereinafter:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The Court on 31.08.2022 had passed the following order which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In compliance of the order dated 08.08.2022, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit wherein in paragraph 3 it is stated that despite having moved an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- also having been deposited on 29.04.2022 yet the case has not been registered nor any action has been taken thereon. The allegations as well as the averments made in the affidavit is of a serious nature.
Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel as well as the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall seek specific instructions and inform the Court as to why the aforesaid case as filed by the petitioner has yet not been registered."
List this matter again on 06th September, 2022, as fresh on which date an affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2 shall be filed indicating why the said case has not been registered.
Today, it has been informed by the learned Standing Counsel that the affidavit is not ready and therefore he sought a week's further time.
The prayer of the learned Standing Counsel is rejected.
List this matter on 09th September, 2022, as fresh on which date the respondent no. 2 shall appear in person before this Court."
13. On 09.09.2022, Shri Hanuman Prasad Mauriya, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow appeared before the Court along with the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Manish Mishra. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned has filed his personal affidavit and has also brought the original records of the case filed by the petitioners as well as the original register wherein cases under Section 24 of the Code of 2006 are entered and recorded.
14. It has been stated by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that though the case was received in the office on 30.04.2022 and on the same very day the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohanlalganj had passed an order on the application itself directing the Tehsildar, Mohanlalganj to submit a demarcation report after enquiry. It is also stated that the Tehsildar Mohanlalganj vide his order dated 02.05.2022 directed the Revenue Inspector, Khujauli to submit his report after demarcation.
15. It has also been stated that the present Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who has filed his personal affidavit namely Shri Hanuman Prasad Mauriya had taken charge as Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 02.07.2022 while the directions were issued by the erstwhile Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 02.05.2022. It has also been stated that the concerned Revenue Inspector had issued notices to the parties concerned fixing 01.09.2022 on which date the demarcation was carried out on the spot and the Revenue Inspector submitted his report on 01.09.2022 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow registered the case on 06.09.2022 and a case No.228877/2022 has been generated fixing 13.09.2022 as the date fixed.
16. It has also been stated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Paragraph 17 of his affidavit that the case could not be decided within three months as provided in the Act and the Rules since the report of the Revenue Inspector was awaited, however, it has been assured that the matter shall be taken up with expedition and insofar as the proceedings prior to 02.07.2022 is concerned, it has been stated that since the new incumbent Shri Mauriya had joined on 02.07.2022, he was not aware of the proceedings prior thereto. He undertakes that he shall be vigilant in future in deciding the judicial proceedings.
17. Despite, the aforesaid facts and explanation given by the respondent in his affidavit and a perusal of the register where the cases are recorded under Section 24 of the Code of 2006 which has been provided to the Court for its perusal indicating that there are 168 pages therein. It would indicate that the first case was entered in the said register on 25.01.2022 and the same goes on in seriatim till S.No.347, which is dated 05.08.2022.
18. However, what the Court finds at running page No.10 and 11 of the said register after the S.No.113, there is no mention of any case at S.No.114-115 rather it jumps to S.No.116. Thus, it would be seen that the cases have been shown in seriatim till 113. Thereafter, the serial number commences at 116 and goes on till 347. It is in the aforesaid seriatim, the case of the petitioners is shown to have been incorporated at S.No.138 at the bottom of the page of the register and the date of entey therein is 02.05.2022. Thereafter, there are two blank pages and then again it starts at Page-23 and Serial starts from 1 in seriatim under the heading ''Computerized Application for Demarcation' and this also goes in seriatim till S.No.200.
19. Similarly, upon perusing the original case file, it would indicate that the petitioners had filed the case and submitted on 30.04.2022 on which date there is an endorsement of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned. Thereafter, the S.No.138 dated 02.05.2022 has been mentioned. The order-sheet which has been brought on record is dated 06.09.2022 which states that the case be registered. Issue notice to the parties fixing 13.09.2022.
20. The record also indicates that notices have been issued under the signatures of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned on 07.09.2022 on the file. Available on the record is the report of Revenue Inspector allegedly dated 01.09.2022 which indicates that in pursuance of the application for demarcation given by the petitioners, notices were issued on 17.08.2022. It is also stated that the petitioners themselves were present at the time of the survey and a spot memo was also prepared. While preparing the spot memo, it is indicated that any person who has any objection to the demarcation may file or submit his objection before the Court concerned. The parties were required to put their signatures but they refused. Accordingly, the signatures of three other persons have been appended. From a perusal thereof, it would indicate that there is no indication as to who are the said witnesses, as their father's name/parentage or address is not known. It is also not known whether they belong to the said village in question.
21. Be that as it may, the facts are clear and undeniable. The petitioners had filed an application seeking demarcation, which was received in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned on 30.04.2022 and remained unattended and the case was registered on 06.09.2022 after the present petition was filed.
22. The demarcation proceedings are covered under Section 24 of the Code of 2006 and Rule 22 framed thereunder. The Revenue Court Manual has also been framed to regulate the procedural aspect and to ensure the transparency, uniformity and to bring sanctity to the Institution and disposal of the cases.
23. Section 24 of the Code of 2006 reads as under:-
"24. Disputes regarding boundaries.-(1) The Sub-Divisional Officer may, on his own motion or on an application made in this behalf by a person interested, decide, by summary inquiry, any dispute regarding boundaries on the basis of existing survey maps or, where they have been revised in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, on the basis of such maps, but if this is not possible, the boundaries shall be fixed on the basis of actual possession.
(2) If in the course of an inquiry into a dispute under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in possession or if it is shown that possession has been obtained by wrongful dispossession of the lawful occupant, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall-
(a) in the first case, ascertain by summary inquiry who is the person best entitled to the property, and shall put such person in possession;
(b) in the second case, put the person so dispossessed in possession, and for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and shall then fix the boundary accordingly.
(3) Every proceeding under this section shall, as far as possible, be concluded by the Sub-Divisional Officer within three months from the date of the application.
(4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer may prefer an appeal before the Commissioner within thirty days of the date of such order. The order of the Commissioner shall be final."
24. The relevant Rule 22 farmed under the Code of 2006 which is related to demarcation reads as under:-
"22. Recovery of the cost for removal of obstacle (Section 25 and 26).(1) Every application for settlement of boundary dispute under section 24(1) of the Code shall be made to the Sub-Divisional-Officer and it shall contain the following particulars:
(a) The names, parentage and addresses of the parties;
(b) Plot number, area and boundaries of the land, along with its location;
(c) Precise nature of the dispute.
(2) No application for demarcation of boundaries under section 24(1) of the Code shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by certified extracts from the maps, Khasras and Record of Rights (Khatauni) on the basis of which demarcation is sought, and the required amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per survey number of the applicant as fee for demarcation has been paid by the applicant.
(3) If the application is for demarcation of two or more than two adjoining plots, only one set of demarcation fee shall be payable but where the survey numbers sought to be demarcated are not adjoining, separate sets of demarcation fee shall be paid.
(4) On the receipt of the application the concerned official shall check the application as to whether the requirements have been fulfilled or not. If there is any defect of formal nature, the applicant or his counsel shall be permitted to remove the defect at once but where the requirements of the application have not been fulfilled, the applicant shall be afforded opportunity as sought for to fulfil the requirements.
(5) As soon as the requirements are fulfilled the official concerned shall register the application in the register concerned and put up the same before the Sub-Divisional-Officer for appropriate order.
(6) The Sub-Divisional-Officer shall pass order on the same day or on the next working day, directing the Revenue Inspector or other revenue officer to demarcate the plot or plots as the case may be after fixing a date and serving the notice in respect thereof to all the tenure holders concerned. This exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of order passed by Sub-Divisional-Officer.
(7) The notice under sub-rule (6) of this rule shall be served on the concerned tenure holder or in his absence on his adult family member. The notice shall also be served on the Chairman of the Land Management Committee.
(8) At the time of demarcation of the plot the spot memo shall be prepared by the Revenue Inspector or other revenue officer and the same shall be signed by all the parties concerned and by the Chairman of the Land Management Committee or any two independent witnesses present at the time of the demarcation. If any party refuses to sign the spot memo, the endorsement to the effect shall be made by the Revenue Inspector.
(9) The Revenue Inspector or other revenue officer shall submit his report of demarcation with spot memo within a period of fifteen days from the date of demarcation. The name and address of the every affected party shall be disclosed in the report.
(10) On receipt of the report under sub-rule (9), the notices shall be issued within one week to all the affected parties inviting the objections on the report and the date shall be fixed which shall not be later than 15 days from the date of issuing the notice.
(11) On the date fixed or on any other date to which the hearing is adjourned, the Sub Divisional Officer shall decide the dispute regarding the boundaries in accordance with the provisions of the sub-section (2) of the section 24 of the Code and pass the appropriate order after considering the report and the objections, if any, filed against the report and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
(12) If the report is confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the boundary pillars shall be fixed accordingly within a period of one week and report in respect thereof shall be submitted which shall be part of the record.
(13) Where boundaries of plots/survey numbers are not identifiable or damaged, due to alluvion or diluvion or heavy rain or for any other reasons, the Sub-Divisional Officer may, on the application of the Chairman of the Village Revenue Committee of the village or on the report of Revenue Inspector or Lekhpal of the Circle or on the joint application signed by all the tenure holders concerned, direct, by general or special order in writing, the Revenue Inspector or Lekhpal concerned to demarcate the boundaries on the spot on the basis of the existing survey map or where it is not possible, on the basis of the possession and to redress the grievance, if any, on the basis of the conciliation in consultation with the Village Revenue Committee. The Revenue Inspector or the Lekhpal shall comply with the such order within two weeks from the date of the order and submit the report thereof to the Sub-Divisional Officer.
(14) If any party is aggrieved by the demarcation under sub-rule (13) of this rule, he may move application for demarcation of the boundaries under sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Code and the demarcation under sub-rule (13) will be subject to demarcation under sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Code.
(15) The Sub Divisional Officer, at the time of passing the order for the demarcation under section 24 of the Code or under sub-rule (13) of this rule, may direct the station officer of the police station concerned to make the police force available for maintaining the law and order on the spot at the time of demarcation.
(16) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceeding within the period specified in section 24(3) and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reason for the same shall be recorded."
25. The relevant rules regarding notice as to how it is to be served also reads as under:-
"216. Service of notice.- Any notice or other document required or authorized to be served under this Code may be served either:-
(a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served; or
(b) by registered post addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode; or
(c) in case of an incorporated company or body, by delivering it or sending it by registered post addressed to the secretary or other principal functionary of the company or body at its principal office; or
(d) in any other manner laid down in this Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for service of summons."
26. The relevant provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Manual which relates to institution of the suit and drawing of the order-sheets, the issuance of the notice and the duties of the Presiding Officer and their readers is also mentioned and the relevant Regulations in respect thereto are being reproduced hereinafter:-
"29. Particulars to be written on order-sheet-The order-sheet (paragraph 1202, Revenue Manual) shall contain a note of every order made in the suit or case, and shall show, the date of and the proceedings at every hearing. It shall show, amongst other matters the names of the parties present or of their counsel, if they are represented by counsel, or of their duly authorized agents and the dates on which the plaint and written statement were filed, issues were recorded, or amended, witnesses examined and the names of such witnesses, of the delivery of judgments, of the signing of the decree, and of any application for review of judgment or amendment of the decree. It shall also contain a note of every proceeding such as the reading of the deposition of a witness examined by commission; the reading of a commission's report and of the fact of any objection being made thereto and if witnesses are in attendance when a case is adjourned, the fact shall be noted.
30. Order sheet to be written by the presiding officer or by an officer of the Court to be signed by presiding officer-Every order on the order-sheet shall be written by the presiding officer or by an officer of the Court under his superintendence, and shall be signed by the presiding officer.
[Note An officer should be appointed in respect of each Court to sign the order fixing the adjourned date under Rule 32, in the absence of the presiding officer due to sudden illness or some other such cause].
* * * * * * * * * * 32 Order affixing dates or directing anything to be done by parties should be signed by parties or their pleaders-Order fixing dates of adjourned dates for hearing or directing anything to be done by the parties of their pleaders whether recorded in the order-sheet or elsewhere shall be signed then and there by the parties or their pleaders.
* * * * * * * * * * The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Manual (Amendment) Regulations, 2016
472. Procedure applicable to the summary proceedings-Procedure prescribed in this chapter shall, subject to the provisions of the Code and the Rules, apply to the summary proceedings under the Code and the Rules.
* * * * * * * * * * 475- Presentation and scrutiny of application -(1) The official F authorised to receive the application shall endorse on the application the date on which it is presented and shall sign the endorsement.
(2) If, on scrutiny, the application is found to be in order, it shall be duly registered and given a serial number.
(3) If the application, on scrutiny, is found to be defective and the defect noticed is formal in nature, the official may allow the applicant or his counsel to remove the defect in his presence, and if the said defect is not formal in nature, the official may allow the applicant or his counsel to rectify the defect at such time as he may deem fit and the endorsement thereof shall be made a on the application which shall be signed by the party or counsel thereof.
(4) If the applicant fails to rectify the defect within the time allowed under the preceding sub- para, the official may decline to register the application and if so, he shall place the matter before the Presiding Officer for appropriate orders.
(5) All the registered applications shall be posted for admission/order before the appropriate Presiding Officer on the next working day. The notice of the posting shall be given by notifying in the Daily Cause List for the day.
(6) The Board shall, apart from the Offline system, endeavour to adopt the online system for the submitting the application processing and depositing the fee prescribed therefor."
27. From the above, it would be clear that there is no leverage provided to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to defer or to avoid registering of a case on the date when an application is received. It is clear that immediately upon receiving of a petition or an application, the office concerned is required to scrutinize the same and unless any defect is pointed out, which cannot be cured at the said point of time then some time is given to cure the defect but if the said application or a petition is found to be in order then the same has to be registered on the same very day.
28. This being so, the record indicating that the case was recorded and entered in the register on 02.05.2022 and thereafter as per the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and as reflected from the order on the application, a report has been called for and notices have been issued to the parties to participate in the survey and demarcation proceedings yet there is not a single order-sheet on record reflecting the said exercise.
29. The first order-sheet which is available on record is dated 06.09.2022 which indicates that, the case be registered and parties be noticed. Apparently, the manner in which the proceedings have been taken is de-hors the provisions of law, the Rules and the Regulations framed and reproduced hereinabove first.
30. The very fact that demarcation proceedings are summary in nature and have to be decided within a period of three months as far as possible as mentioned in Section 24 of the Code of 2006 itself and here this Court is dealing with a case where the application of the petitioners for demarcation was not even registered for four months and they had to knock the doors of this Court for getting their case registered and it was done only after strict orders were passed by this Court.
31. Access to justice is often used as a term for access to the formal institution of the legal proceedings by those in search of a remedy either individually in a particular civil or criminal case or collectively in a group for a class action or for raising constitutional or legal challenges.
32. Viewed through the lens of human right, access to justice is the obligation of State to construct a legal and institutional framework which facilitates access to independent and effective judicial and adjudicatory mechanisms and ensure a fair outcome for those seeking redress without discrimination of any kind.
33. A Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8 SCC 509 categorically held that access to justice is a facet of right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
34. Justice is a concept of rightness, fairness based on ethics, moral and rationality. Laws made by sovereign body strive for achieving justice for various sections of the society; courts are established for eradicating injustice by reprimanding those who violate the laws and provide remedy to the aggrieved persons.
35. Justice is important, as it restores a sense of equal citizenship and humanity, forces acknowledgment of the suffering, and prevents recurrence. To work in order to secure justice to each and every section of the society is one of the most important goal of a successful State . In Indian context securing justice to the citizens has been kept on supreme priority, since constitution is drafted by the people which lays down the formation of state and direct it to do its function keeping in mind basic principles enshrined in the constitution. Preamble to the Indian constitution also talks about achieving social, economic and political justice as its goal.
36. Having noticed the aforesaid, with a heavy heart, the Court notices that the State has failed to provide the access to justice to the petitioners. The fundamental right of the petitioners to seek redressal through the Court of law has been infringed. This requires introspection from all stakeholders especially the State who is the appointing authority of the Officer manning the Revenue Courts, who adjudicate and decide the valuable rights of the citizens relating to their individual rights and property while exercising judicial and quasi-judicial powers in accordance and within the framework of law.
37. Though the case of the petitioners has now been registered and his prayer has become redundant, however, the Court concerned before whom the demarcation proceedings are now pending shall after issuing fresh and proper notice to all the parties concerned shall get the inspection done once again and thereafter inviting objection on the same decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The earlier inspection which is said to have been carried out in absence of the parties shall not come in the way of the parties or the Court and shall be ignored while deciding the matter.
38. However, the facts which have been brought to the notice of the Court is an eye-opener and it cannot be left unaddressed. From the above, it is clear that the fundamental rights of the petitioners to seek access to justice has been infringed. The respondent No.2 could not give any explanation as to why the case of the petitioners filed on 30.04.2022 could not be registered till 06.09.2022. How the order for demarcation and inspection could have been passed without any order being on the order-sheet. How could the Revenue Inspector conduct the inspection without notice being issued to the parties concerned and without adhering to the Rules relevant and applicable in respect thereto. How could the Revenue Inspector act upon any alleged order when the case itself was not registered.
39. Another aspect needs to be investigated is that when the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court after serving a copy of the same in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, who accepts advance notice of all matters filed in the High Court where State is a party then despite having knowledge of the same, no instructions were made available and despite three dates were fixed in Court on 08.08.2022, 31.08.2022 and 06.09.2022 and after the request of the State Counsel was rejected on 06.09.2022 only thereafter the case of the petitioner was registered on 06.09.2022.
40. Apparently, a serious issue arises which involves dereliction of duty of the person, who are required to act and perform ministerial work, judicial and quasi-judicial function. The respondent No.2 even after having taken charge on 02.07.2022 did not address the issue and slept over the matter, reason being that no order-sheet was drawn nor any date fixed which is nothing but depriving a citizen of this right to access fair and speedy justice.
41. Thus, exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court issue directions to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow as well as the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Lucknow to pass the necessary orders ensuring that the cases which are filed before the Revenue Courts are promptly registered. The order-sheets are properly drawn and signed by the Presiding Officer of the respective Courts promptly. To ensure its efficacy and implementation necessary checks and regular inspections be made in Tehsils in all districts of the State periodically and at intervals to oversee that the compliancies are being made.
42. The Principal Secretary (Revenue) shall also hold an enquiry into the matter relating to non-registration of the case of the petitioners which was filed on 30.04.2022 and the first order-sheet, which came to be written on 06.09.2022 registering the case in light of the observations made in Paragraphs 38 to 40 of this judgment and it be completed within three months. Upon the conclusion of the enquiry, the necessary action be taken against the person found responsible and guilty. A copy of the said enquiry report with the action taken be placed on the record of this case.
43. As the relief claimed by the petitioners has already been rendered otiose, hence, this petition shall stands disposed of, however, the matter shall be listed on on 9th January, 2023 only for compliance of Para-42 of this judgment.
44. List this matter on 9th January, 2023 for compliance.
45. The original register and the record, which have been provided to the Court for its perusal, the same are being returned to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
46. A copy of this order shall be served upon the Principal Secretary (Revenue), Lucknow and the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Lucknow through the Senior Registrar of this Court forthwith.
Order Date :- 09.09.2022 Rakesh/-