Allahabad High Court
Tahrunnisha And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 10 January, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2059 Court No. - 8 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6512 of 2024 Petitioner :- Tahrunnisha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. And 22 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhanu Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhanu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha-respondent no. 21.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners pray for the following main relief:-
" (i) issue a direction to the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Gauriganj, Amethi to decide the pending application dated 18.11.2023 filed by the petitioners under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 "Mohd. Rais & others Versus Amina & others" in respect of Gata No. 463/0.1970 hectare, situated at Village Pure Chitai, Pargana Gaura Jamo, Tehsil Gauriganj, District- Amethi, pending before him since 18.11.2023 expeditiously within stipulated period as early as possible."
3. While pressing the instant writ petition, the petitioners have tried to make out a case that they have filed an application for demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2006') and in accordance with the rules, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also deposited and its receipt dated 18.11.2023 has been brought on record.
4. In paragraph 6, it has been averred that the Sub Divisional Officer, Gauriganj as well as the Tehsildar, Gauriganj, District Amethi, the Revenue Inspector, the Area Lekhpal has kept the file and till date neither they have visited the spot nor demarcated the land of the petitioners nor submitted the report before the respondent no. 2 i.e. the SDO, Gauriganj.
5. In paragraph 7, a reference has been made to Section 24 (3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to indicate that the proceedings have to be decided within a period of three months. In paragraphs no. 8 to 10, it has been averred that more than a year has lapsed and the Inspector/Area Lekhpal have neither visited the spot nor made any report and the proceedings are pending for the detriment of the petitioners.
6. It is further stated that being aggrieved against the inaction, the petitioners moved an application before the SDO, Gauriganj on 30th July, 2024 upon which the Revenue Inspector was directed to comply with the orders dated 20th November, 2023. It is in the aforesaid context that it is averred that an order be passed to decide expeditiously the pending application since 18.11.2023.
7. Taking note of the aforesaid, the Court had passed the order on 03.01.2025 which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel.
The petitioner has approached this Court for expeditious disposal of his application for demarcation filed under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
In the petition it has been averred that even though the petitioner has deposited the necessary sum, but till date no further proceedings have taken place. It is also alleged that the file is also with the Tehsildar, neither the case has been registered nor any spot position has been made and as such proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, which is of summary nature is with respondent No.2 since 18.11.2023 and the same which even otherwise ought to be decided within a period of six months. One and half year has lapsed but the case has not yet been registered.
Allegations are serious in nature.
Learned Standing Counsel is directed to seek instructions in this regard and also get the personal affidavit filed of the officer concerned as to why the said case has not been registered even though the petitioner had filed the same on 18.11.2023.
List this matter on 8th January, 2025 as fresh."
8. On 08.01.2025, the Court had passed the following order which reads as under:-
"In terms of the order dated 03.01.2025 the matter is listed today, however, a copy of the instructions which has been provided by the learned Standing counsel is not in consonance with the query of the Court which is recorded in the order dated 03.01.2025.
Let the S.D.M, Gauriganj, District Amethi shall appear before this Court along with the original record on 10.01.2025.
List on 10.01.2025 as fresh. "
9. In the aforesaid backdrop that the SDO, Gauriganj Sri Digvijay Kumar Singh has appeared before the Court with the original records and has filed his personal affidavit wherein in paragraph 6 to 9, he has indicated the manner in which the proceedings were handled and for the sake of reference, the same is reproduced hereinafter:-
"6. That the lower court records reveals that the petitioners moved an application under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 on 18.11.2023 before the Sub Divisional Officer concerned and he called the report on 20.11.2023 through the Tahsildar concerned. Further, on the aforesaid noting of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 20.11.2023, the Tahsildar, Gauriganj called a report from the Lekhpal concerned/Revenue Inspector on 23.11.2023.
7. That the present Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned has taken over the charge of the present Tahsil on 16.03.2024. It is also relevant to point out that in the meantime the General Elections of the Parliament were held in which deponent was busy and thereafter on 09.07.2024 the present proceedings under Section 24 are registered on 09.07.2024 at Case No.3314 of 2024 (T202404710103314) However, the Revenue Inspector issued the notice dated 05.08.2024 for visiting the spot on 10.08 2024 However, when on 10.08 2024 the concerned officer visited at spot for demarcation report, the concemed parties engaged the attention of the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Ayodhya in Revision No.2794 (Computer Case No.C-202304000002794); Rais & others Vs. Mohd Shafiq & others, which was filed on 02.12.2023 by which a stay order is granted by the revisional court, which is passed in view of the proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 The photocopy of the order dated 30.10.2023 which is passed in the proceedings under Section 30 is annexed as Annexure No.PA-1 to this affidavit. However, the aforesaid order dated 30 10.2023 reveals that the same is in regard to the same Gata No 463 for which the present proceedings under Section 24 is moved by the petitioners.
8. That however, the stay order dated 01.07.2024 is extended from time to time and the same has been extended till 05.12.2024 and thereafter the same is not extended. That when it is brought in the notice of the deponent that the stay order is not extended by the revisional court, the Revenue Inspector again issued a notice on 30.12.2024 for visiting the spot on 06.01.2025, however in view of the aforesaid notice dated 30.12.2024 the demarcation is done at spot on 06.01.2025 and the report of the same is submitted on 08.01.2025 by the revenue officer concerned. However, the inspection report dated 06.01.2025 shows that the information to the parties was provided for filing objections till 17.01.2025 but the present parties including the petitioners denied to sign the demarcation notice dated 06.01.2025 except few. Although the photos were taken at spot in which the petitioner no.2; Rais was present at the spot. The photographs which are taken at the spot on 06.01.2025 are annexed as Annexure No.PA-2 to this affidavit.
9. That till the report dated 08.01.2025 is submitted the paper book of the petitioner continued in want of demarcation report by which the dates are used to be fixed and in which last date was fixed for 30.12.2024 and again in want of demarcation report the next date 17.01.2025 has been fixed. In the meantime, the report dated 08.01.2025 has been submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector. However, in view of the report and in want of objections till 17.01.2025 the present matter will be disposed of as early as possible."
10. Be that as it may, the submission of learned Standing Counsel is that even though the application for demarcation was received on 18.11.2023 but the fact remains that in respect of the same plot nos. 463 for which the petitioners have filed an application for demarcation, another case under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had been filed by one Sri Mohd. Idrees who is the present respondent no. 5 in the writ petition.
11. In the case so initiated by Mohd. Idrees, the present petitioners namely Tahrunnisha and Mohd. Raees ware also parties. In the proceedings initiated by Mohd. Idress, an order was passed on 30th October, 2023 against which Mohd. Raees and Mohd. Hakeem who are the respondent nos. 6 and 7 in the instant writ petition had preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya wherein the present petitioners namely Tahrunnisha and Mohd. Raees were parties as respondent nos. 3 and 4.
12. In the said revision, the Revisional Court had passed an interim order dated 01st of July, 2024. It is in this context that the SDO, Gauriganj in his affidavit has explained that further proceedings could not be taken forward on the application moved by the petitioner since there was an interim order of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya in proceedings relating to the same plot.
13. It is further urged that once the said interim order was not extended rather the said order continued till 05.12.2024 and thereafter the SDO, Gauriganj swung back in the action on the application preferred by the petitioners and called for the records and in furtherance thereof on 06.01.2025, the demarcation was done and the report has been submitted to the SDO concerned where the matter is listed on 17.01.2025 and objections have been invited from the concerned parties against the said report.
14. It is thus submitted that the allegations as made in the petition do not depict the true picture rather the petition suffers from gross concealment of facts.
15. Having taken note of the aforesaid response filed by the State, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the veracity of the averments made in the affidavit of the officer concerned to which the learned counsel for the petitioner C.B. Singh could not dispute the same.
16. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, what this Court finds is that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, inasmuch as, there has been a material concealment regarding an entire limb of litigation wherein the petitioners were a party emanating in proceedings under Section 30 of the Act of 2006 relating to the same plot for which the petitioners had sought demarcation and wherein there was an interim order operating from the Court of Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya. In the said case the petitioners had also put in appearance and therefore it cannot be said that they were not aware of the said proceedings.
17. Significantly, the order passed by the Court of Additional Commissioner (Judicial) is dated 01st of July, 2024 and the instant writ petition which has been filed is dated 18.12.2024, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the said proceedings to not disclose the same in the instant petition.
18. In this view of the matter, the contentions as well as the averments made by the petitioners in paragraph nos. 5 to 10 of the writ petition are an outcome of deliberate misrepresentation which cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, the proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are solemn proceedings and anyone who approaches the Court must come to the Court with clean hands.
19. In this regard, several references have been made by the Apex Court including in the case of Dilip Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010 SCC and again in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society & Ors. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531 in paragraphs 44, 45 and 46, the Apex Court has noticed as under:-
"44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision-making to the court. True, there is a mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the order dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not enough disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the order dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it has attained finality.
45. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] stress was laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to an appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows: (AIR p. 1560, para 9).
'9. ? It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the present case, special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent.'
46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 38 the case law on the subject was discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not come to the court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. It was said: (SCC p. 51, para 21).
20. 19. This Court also in recent pronouncement relying upon the earlier decisions of the Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das v. District Magistrate, Ambedkarnagar and others, 2023 (1) ADJ 342 [LB], as well as in the case of Keshav Prasad and Another Vs. Consolidation Officer, Lucknow and others; Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65819 have taken note of the aforesaid decisions. Apparently, the instant petition suffers from concealment of facts which cannot be appreciated. The relief as claimed by the petitioners is being denied for the sole reason that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands.
21. Even though, the conduct of the petitioners may not be worthy to entertain the petition but this Court while exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India also cannot shut its eyes in the manner that the State has processed and proceeded with the case of the petitioners.
22. From the record which was placed before the Court for perusal including the affidavit filed by the SDO, Gauriganj today, few facts are undisputed.
(i) the petitioners had moved an application for demarcation on 18.11.2023
(ii) the necessary requisite fee as provided in Rule 22 framed under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was also deposited and the said rule also provides that the case shall be registered on the date of deposit of the fee or on the next day.
23. What this Court finds that despite the aforesaid Rule and the application as well as the fee having been deposited on 18.11.2023 yet till July, 2024, the Court, remained in the state of inertia and as evident from paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed by the SDM, the case came to be registered on 09.07.2024 i.e. after about 8 months.
24. The plea of interim order passed by the Revisional Court can only be pressed into service to prevent changing the nature and status of the disputed property but it did not prevent the Authorities from entering the case or registering it. This is evident from the fact that the interim order of the Revisional Court was passed on 01st July, 2024 while the case of the petitioner under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 came to be rejected on 09th July, 2024. Thus, the plea of the interim order being a deterrent for registering the case is apparently misconceived.
25. It is one thing to state that the proceedings may not have been conducted appropriately or could not be taken forward for various reasons but there can be no justification for proceedings which are of judicial/quasi judicial in nature to be filed before a court and yet remain gathering dust for more than 8 months. Right to legal redressal is a fundamental right and by not registering the case for about 8 months, it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice as well as violation of fundamental rights. It is the solemn duty of the State to ensure a robust system for providing justice and it is in furtherance thereof that the Acts and specific Rules are framed by the Legislature. Despite the intentions being clear, while promulgating the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder so that the parties who are based out of rural area and depend on agriculture, their petty concern may be redressed at the earliest and it is for the said reason that a formal hope has been expressed that the proceeding under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 should be taken to its logical conclusion within a period of three months.
26. In this backdrop, if the debacle of the State which is before this Court is examined, it would reveal that where the proceedings as a whole are to be decided within a period of three months and it further reveals that it has taken the Court of Sub Divisional Officer more than 8 months to register a case which should have been done automatically unless it found that there were some glaring errors and for the said reason the application could not be entertained.
27. This is a clear case where the Court of SDO, Gauriganj has been wanting in exercise of its duty to ensure that all matters which come up before it are properly addressed, registered and taken to its logical conclusion.
28. This Court has the occasion to consider the dilemma of citizens in several cases i.e. in W.P. No. 412 (A-227) of 2024; Mohammad Altaf Mansoor @ Chaudhary Mohammad Altaf Mansoor Vs. Sub Divisional Magisrtrate, Barabanki and others); Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10233 Writ-C No. 10297 of 2024; 2024 AHC-LKO: 81839 (Bhupendra Singh Vs. SDO, Pratapgarh and Others), Writ-C No. 10312 of 2024; 2024: AHC-LKO: 81781, Writ-C No. 3900 of 2024; 2024; AHC:LKO:52394 (DooberVs. Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others) and Mohd. Ameen Vs. DDC, Bahraich; MANU/UP/4004/2024 and yet again this is one another case where there is blatant violation of the right of an individual to seek legal redressal. Apparently, it is the State machinery which is responsible and this aspect cannot be ignored.
29. For the aforesaid reasons, where the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, the Court dismisses the writ petition with a cost of Rs. 2500/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court within a period of three weeks from today and at the same time the State also must be saddled with cost of Rs. 5,000/- with liberty to hold an inquiry and recover the aforesaid amount from the officer said to be responsible. The State would deposit a cost of Rs. 5000/- with the District Legal Aid Board, Lucknow within a period of two weeks from today and file an affidavit of compliance before this Court by 01st February.
30. List this matter for the limited purpose on 04th February, 2025.
Order Date:- 10th January, 2025 Asheesh/-
(Jaspreet Singh, J.)