Allahabad High Court
Udai Narain Singh Son Of Patiraj Singh vs The State Of U.P. Through The Secretary, ... on 6 October, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(2)AWC1399
Author: S.N. Srivastava
Bench: S.N. Srivastava
JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. These three writ petitions have been conjoined for being heard as a composite case as the reliefs claimed therein are common i.e. by means of these three petitions, the common relief sought is to direct the respondent concerned to decide cases pending before them (in writ petition No. 63740 of 2005) since the year 1989, (in writ petition No. 64545 of 2005 and writ petition No. 64896 of 2005) since the year 2002.
2. In the course of hearing of these petitions, learned Standing Counsel was called upon to seek instructions in relation to judicial working of the Collectors and the Commissioner and other officers performing functions under the Land Revenue Act and U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act. In this connection, he was also enjoined to produce copy of circular or Government orders if any issued by the Government. Today Sri Sanjai Goswami apprised the Court that no such circular or Government order is stated to have been issued prescribing fixed hours or days of the working of the revenue courts at par with regular courts of law. In view of above statement, it is essential to evaluate the working of the authorities who have been conferred power of performing judicial function under various Acts inasmuch as such way-ward manner of working while exercising judicial functions, is fraught with serious consequences and cannot be overlooked merely on the premises that such authorities are also charged with more urgent and pressing administrative duties which they have to perform as a justification to their neglecting or relegating statutory judicial duties to a secondary position. In my considered view, this wanton performance of judicial functions treating the same as a secondary function by these administrative authorities is a matter of grave concern inasmuch as it reflects upon the faith of litigant public in the efficacy of judicial system of the country and impoverish the poor litigants further who have to commute on various dates for seeking resolution/ obviation of their disputes. It is very inequitable situation that the very object of a statute enacted for speedier and quicker redressal of grievance and dispute of the poor village people eking out their livelihood by sweating out on their meager holding for precarious existence, is being trivialized and the cases which according to the very object of the Statute ought to have been disposed of speedily and quickly, can be seen suffering adjournments for years together putting paid to common-men's hope of quick redressal and resolution of disputes. The inequitable situation cannot be appreciated that poor village people having meager holding have invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution just for seeking the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to take their cases to finality which according to one of the petition, has been pending since the year 1989. It is in this perspective that the Court is compelled to go deeper into the manner of working of these courts.
3. Dispute in writ petition No. 63740 of 2005 revolves round plot Nos. 2065,2332, 2333 situated in village Mahadeva Kusarana Tahsil Kirakat District Jaunpur. The petitioner, wearied of prolonged pendency of the case, has knocked the door of the Court, The precise grievance: of the petitioner is that the aforestated case having been instituted in the year 1989 (aggrieved by reduction of area of his plots in the process of Map Bandobast) is still stagnating despite efflux of more than 15 years. Alongwith the writ petition, copy of order sheet has also been filed from a perusal of which it would appear that the case has suffered adjournments from date to date either on account of striKe by lawyers or by reason of collector being busy elsewhere in administrative works.
4. Likewise, in writ petition No. 64545 of 2005, Revision No. 87 of 2002 filed by the petitioners has been lingering decision Before Dy. Director Consolidation, Bijnor and the relief sought is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of and pronounce the judgment and order reserved by the respondent No. 2.
5. The third writ petition i.e. writ petition No. 648960f 2005, the relief sought is to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 i.e. consolidation officer Pindara District Varanasi to decide case No. 807 of 2004-2005 Balwanti v. Babu Nandan and Ors. pending before him expeditiously which came to him on remand from Deputy Director consolidation Varanasi attended with the direction to the parties to appear before the Consolidation officer on 3.5.2002 following by direction to dispose of the matter at the earliest.
6. Writ petition No. 63740 of 2005 shall be treated as pivotal petition and shall govern the fate of the other two petitions lumped together with this petition.
7. It bears no repudiation that the avowed object underlying the statutes like U.P.Z.A. &L.R.Act, U.P. Land Revenue Act and U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was to provide a speedier procedure shorter than the ordinary procedure and the very raison de'tre of these statutes being speedier and shorter procedure than ordinary law has been upheld by good number of decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court to be boon to the common village people. It: connoted that the poor people of the village whose livelihood was contingent upon earning from tilling of the land would be able to get cheaper and speedier justice and that: they will not have to queue up and wait ad-infinitum for securing adjudication/resolution of the disputes concerning their agricultural land. It is clearly eloquent from a perusal of the order sheet annexed to the petition that the cases linger on for years together on account of authorities concerned being busy in administrative duties. It would thus seem that authorities exercising judicial powers often skip judicial work mostly on account of being engaged in administrative duties, leaving the judicial working to the unguided discretion of subordinate staff. This tendency is growing exponentially which militates against the mandate of the Constitution which enshrines rule of law as the very soul of the Constitution and frowns upon arbitrary exercise of such powers by the authorities on revenue as well as consolidation side.
8. Descending to the facts of the present case, whatever be the merit of the case of the petitioner, nothing can be more glaring nan the unmerited indifference shown to the case by the officers of the executive branch who have been bestowed the adjudicatory power under the Land Revenue Act. There can be no manner of doubt that while effecting separation between judiciary and executive, these adjudicatory functions were gradually assigned by the State to the executive officers with the avowed aims and object of providing quick and expeditious disposal of agricultural dispute between the parties or between the State and parties without laying down any quota for them as is imperative for the officers of the State judiciary. It is a sad commentary that the present case having been instituted in the year 1989, is still lingering even after a lapse of more than 15 years. There is no indicium on record which may give an inkling of concern or anxiety on the part of these officers for unconscionably long delay in disposal of cases notwithstanding knowing well that the object underlying the Act itself was to provide a quicker and speedier procedure and in consequence, a quicker and speedier resolution of disputes in contra-indication of what is said to be happening in an ordinary court of law- From a close scrutiny of the order-sheet filed by the petitioner alongwith writ petition, it is explicit that the case has been a victim of callous indifference on the part of the authority that be, towards quick disposal of the case.
9. According to a meaning contained in Law Lexicon, the Court is a body in the government to which the public administration of justice is delegated; an organized body with defined powers, meeting at certain times and places for the hearing and decision of causes and others matters brought before it and aided in this, its proper business, by its proper officers. According to further definition in the Law Lexicon, "in every court, there must be at least three constituent parts- the actor, reus and judex: the actor, 6r plaintiff, who complains of an injury done, the reus or defendant who is 7 called upon to make satisfaction for it and the judex or judicial power which is to examine the truth of fact and to determine the law arising upon that fact and if any injury appears to have been done, to ascertain arid by its officer to apply, the remedy. In view of the above, it can safely be said that these courts under the statutes have all the trapping of courts and they have to act judicially at fixed places and at certain times.
10. "Revenue courts" have been defined in Section 4 (8) U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 to mean all or any of the following authorities (that is to say), the Board and all members thereof, Commissioners, Additional Commissioners, Collectors, (Additional Collectors), Assistant Collectors, Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers, Record Officers and Assistant Record Officers and Tahsildars. The self-same definition has been applied on all fours to the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act.
11. In a recent decision rendered by this Court, it was noticed with concern that cases have been lingering in various courts dealing with revenue cases and in consequence, a peremptory direction has been issued with a view to regulating the working of these courts by prescribing fixed hours and days untramrneled by the pressure of any other duties on administrative side. The present case is not dissimilar to the case noticed above and in the facts and circumstances, when the case in hand has been suffering protraction for more than 15 years, I deem it my sacred duty to do something towards reonentation in the realm occupied by these officers on executive side. This court is fully conscious that these executive officers are more often required to discharge executive functions which include functions of law and order and have to deal with unpleasant emergent situation and in discharge of these functions and in doing so they feel compelled to relegate the adjudicatory function to secondary position. Their executive and administrative functions apart, there is felt need that these officers should be mandated to devote few days and hours to these adjudicatory functions so that the statutory duties should not suffer at the altar of executive or administrative exigencies.
12. There is another aspect to be reckoned with. As noticed above, it is manifested from a perusal of the order-sheet that the case suffered.epeated adjournments on account of strike by the lawyers. By a catena of decisions rendered by the Apex court, it has been held that the lawyers strikes are illegal and that effective steps should be taken to stop the growing tendency. It has also been held that advocates have no right to go on strike and that the courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because of strike by lawyers, It has further been held that it is the duty of all courts to go on with matters on their boards even the absence of lawyers and further that the courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. (See , 1993 (3) SSC 256, (1995) 3 SCC 19, 1995 (1) SCC 619, , , and .
13. Upon a cumulative reading of the mandate of the Apex court embodied in the aforestated decisions, this Court on administrative side, issued circular No. 35/IIIb-36/Admin 'G' Dated: Oct: 4,2004 squeezing from above decisions the following directions for compliance by the subordinate courts in the event of strike by lawyers.
"1. The Subordinate Courts shall not take cognizance of any resolution passed by the Bar Associations to strike and to stop; judicial work. The District Judge concerned shall not entertain or circulate any such resolutions amongst the Judicial officers in his Judgeship.
2, The Judicial Officers must strictly adhere to Court hours. They shall perform the entire judicial work on the dais and shall not accept any request to rise, on to stop judicial work on the request of lawyers or litigants. In case lawyers do not attend to work the judicial officers shall proceed to work in the following manner:-
A. Where the parties are willing they shall be heard personally and necessary orders shall be passed in cases requiring no further evidence.
B. In matters fixed for evidence parties shall be allowed to file documents and do examinations/cross examinations of witnesses, if so desire.
C. In revisions, review, appeals (Civil and Criminal both), bails and urgent applications, the orders should be passed on merits of the case.
D. In criminal trials of the court of Sessions or Magistrate the witnesses in attendance should be examined by the public prosecutor/prosecuting officer as the case be, giving an option to the accused to either cross examine the witnesses himself or bear the expenses for recalling of the witnesses, for cross examination on the date (s) next to be fixed.
3. The District judges shall submit weekly reports to the Court, with regard to any incident, which may take place in the judgeship with compliance report of these directives.
4. In case any lawyer or group of lawyers or litigants, creates indiscipline in the Court or try to obstruct court proceedings, the Judicial Officer concerned should immediately inform the District Judge, who shall immediately arrange for the police force and restore the functioning of the Court. In case any damage is caused to the records or the court: property, the District Judge shall immediately get the First Information Report of the incident lodged.
5. The District Judges shall arrange for adequate police force, to be kept in reserve in the judgeship, to be deployed for protection of the judicial officers and the court property.
6. The District Judge should inform the names of the persons involved in disrupting the court proceeding to the High Court forthwith.
7. The Judicial Officers shall not: perform any judicial work in their chambers.
14. By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, all courts in India are bound to follow :he decision of the Supreme Court. The courts dealing with disputes under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act and U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act: are courts and as such these courts cannot turn a blind eye and are bound to abide by the mandate of the Apex court.
15. My attention has also been adverted to resolution of the Bar council of U.P. in its meeting held on 12th Jan 1997. The resolution is prefaced by the remark containing solicitude of the Bar on account of burgeoning problem of frequent strike in the district courts as well as in the High Court, which has assumed proportion- The resolution adopted by the Bar council may be quoted below.
" Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh Dwara Aaj Ki Baithak Mai Yeh Nishchaye Kiya Gaya Ki Bar Association Kb Ek Patra Likhkar Unke Adhyaksh/Matri Ko Yeh Nirdesh Diya Jai Ki Ve Samuchit Adhar Ke BinaKisi p;rakar Ki Koi Bhi Hartal Athva Niyayik Karya Se Virat Rahgne Ka Prastav Na Parit Karein. Yadi Vidhi Vyavsaye Se Jude Kisi Adhivakata Athva Niyayik Adhikari Ke Nidhanpar Shock Sabha Ki Jaati Hai To Veh Shokck Sabha Bhi Aprant 2 Baje Bhojan Avkash Ke Bad Adhe Hi Din Nyayik Karya Se Virat Rahenge. Poore Din Shock Sabha Kar Ke Nyayik Karya Se Virat Rahne Ki Prakrati Chhode."
16. In view of the above, there is felt need that functioning of the courts created under the statutes i.e. under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act, the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and also other courts created under various other Acts dealing with the disputes pertaining to agricultural land, should be regulated simulating the standard of a regular court of law so as to appear to be acting judicially.
1. That these courts in compliance of a. string of decisions rendered by the Apex court aforestated, shall abide by the instructions contained in Circular issued by this Court on Administrative Side in so far as it is quoted above in the body of this Judgment by issuing appropriate circular/directions etc.
2. That the Government shall prescribe minimum quota for disposal of cases in a month and fix days and time for sitting of revenue courts as well as consolidation courts so as to provide speedier and quicker d. posal of cases on revenue side consistent with the aims and objects of the statute.
3. That the concerned authorities aforestated shall initiate apropriate steps forthwith in the form of issuing Government orders or circulars as the case may be.
17. Reverting to the facts of writ: petition No. 63740 of 2005, it is directed that the authority concerned shall take up the matter on the date fixed and endeavour to take the matter to some finality within a period not exceeding one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.
18. Likewise in writ petition No. 64545 of 2005, wherein revision No. 87 of 2002 is stated to have been pending since the year 2002 and it is further stated that only judgment remains to be pronounced, it is directed that the Deputy Director Consolidation Bijnor shall pronounce the judgment within 15 days from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this judgment.
19. Similarly, in writ petition No. 645896 of 2005 where in case No. 807/2004-2005 is stated to be pending before Consolidation officer Pindara District Varanasi since the year 2002, it is directed that the authority concerned shall endeavour to dispose of the case finally within one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him.
20. In view of the above it is directed that copies of this judgment shall be supplied to all concerned including Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, the Principal Secretary Ministry of Revenue, Government of U.P. Vidhan Bhawan Lucknow and the Consolidation Commissioner/Director Consolidation U.P. Lucknow for compliance with the above directions the Secretary Board of Revenue, the Principal Secretary, Revenue and the Consolidation Commissioner U.P, Lucknow for compliance with the above directions. It is further directed that the matter will be posted before this Court for further orders after a month on 6.12.2005 on which date the authorities aforesaid shall file their respective affidavits in compliance of the directions aforestated.
21. A certified copy of this order be also supplied and served to the Chief Standing Counsel for doing the needful in observance of directions aforestated and to assist: the Court on the date fixed in the matter of compliance with the directions of the Court aforestated.