Allahabad High Court
Sabhajeet vs Consolidation Officer Tehsil Bikapur ... on 4 May, 2022
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1142 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sabhajeet Respondent :- Consolidation Officer Tehsil Bikapur Ayodhya And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Saryu Prasad Tiwari,Sushil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer, which reads as under:-
"(a) direct the Consolidation Officer, Tehsil-Bikapur, Ayodhya, Opposite Party No.1 to decide the Case No.501 and Case No.502 (Ram Baran vs. Ram Lal) filed by the petitioner and opposite party No.2 U/S 9-A(2) of the C.H. Act which is pending before the Opposite Party No.1.
(b) pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.
(c) allow the petition with costs."
This Court on 20.04.2022 had passed the following order which reads as under:-
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Consolidation Officer since 1989.
Learned Standing Counsel shall seek instructions and inform the Court the reasons with sufficient particularity as to why the proceedings have yet not been decided when the objections are pending since 1989. Proper details shall be provided within a period of ten days.
List this matter again on 2nd of May, 2022, as fresh."
In pursuance of the order dated 20.04.2022, the learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has submitted that he has received the instructions and on the basis thereof he has sought to justify the pendency of the objections preferred under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 pending since 1989.
The learned Additional Chief Standing counsel submits that the evidence of the petitioner is complete and though time was granted to the private-respondent No.2 and on one occasion the matter also proceeded ex-parte but yet the matter remained pending and now the matter shall be decided soon and a request was made for reasonable time of three months to decide as the Court is held twice a week only.
The explanation as put forward by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of written instructions received by him cannot be accepted. The casual manner in which it has been informed through the written instructions that though the evidence of the present petitioner had concluded and the private-respondent No.2 was taking time and in order to avoid the same once the matter had also proceeded ex-parte against the private-respondent, yet again the matter remained pending for the evidence of the private-respondent, this explanation is not good enough.
It is high time that the Revenue/Consolidation Authorities realized that they cannot take the matters so casually and lightly where they are bound to perform judicial and quasi-judicial function relating to disputes of farmers and land holders.
For a farmer his entire livelihood and future and that too of his family is at stake and connected with his land holding. The instant case is an example where the matter is pending before the Court of first instance since 1989. More than thirty years have gone by and the manner in which the explanation has been given that the matter shall be decided soon shows insensitivity least realizing that thirty years is not a short span of time.
The Presiding Officers of Revenue Courts cannot remain mute spectators permitting the parties to prolong the litigation with an indifferent attitude. The Presiding Officer must take proactive measures to bring the lis to its conclusion so that no party may abuse the process of law or take advantage of procedural tactics to keep the matter pending indefinitely. This will not only result in timely disposal of cases but will also reinforce the faith of the litigating public in the judicial system.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court takes an exception to the explanation furnished, however, in view of the order proposed to be passed by the Court, notice to the private-respondent No.2 is dispensed with.
The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to take up the matter on weekly basis. It has been informed that the matter is fixed on 16.05.2022 and the Presiding Officer shall make an endeavour to decide the matter within a period of four weeks from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before him, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The parties shall also cooperate in early hearing and in case if any party is found to be misusing the liberty, appropriate costs be imposed. The matter would be taken up on the date fixed as deemed convenient by the Presiding Officer irrespective of any resolution passed by the Members of the Bar and the matter would be heard and taken forward to be finally decided within the time span as mentioned above.
It is also made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.1 shall decide the lis strictly in accordance with law.
Before parting, it may be observed that this Court is seeing a deluge of petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking expeditious disposal of cases pending before the Revenue Courts. The common ground taken in almost all the petitions is the casual manner and attitude with which frequent adjournments are granted and frequent dates due to non holding of the Courts by the Presiding Officer, grant of general dates for reasons such as resolution passed by the Members of the Bar amongst others.
This Court has to spend considerable time to pass orders on such petitions which is unproductive and precious judicial time is wasted which can be better utilized for deciding substantive litigation.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court deems fit that the matter should be noticed by the appropriate authorities at the State level and administration to frame proper guidelines for disposal of old cases in time bound fashion to be monitored regularly so that the guidelines do not remain only on paper but are truly implemented so that the litigants from the rural section of the society can get succor and respite from vicious cycle of unending dates, without substantive hearing, causing heavy pendency of old cases.
A copy of this order be communicated to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), State of U.P. through the Senior Registrar of this Court, who shall device an action plan for time bound disposal of old matters and its constant monitoring, within six weeks and place a report before this Court on 08.07.2022.
The matter shall be listed again on 08.07.2022 only for the purpose of the report to be furnished, as above.
Order Date :- 4.5.2022 Asheesh/Rakesh)