Allahabad High Court

Kamlesh Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 14 Others on 6 February, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:20210
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43350 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Kamlesh Tiwari
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashwant Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Yashwant Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing respondents 1 and 2.

2. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner has approached this court for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2, Additional District Magistrate (F/R), District Azamgarh to decide the case No D202215060003379 under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 (Kamlesh Vs. Paras) dated 28.12.2010 regarding to village Basahi Bandedaspur, Pargana & Tehsil-NIzamabad, District-Azamgarh within a time period fixed by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that aforementioned case was filed by petitioner on 28.12.2010. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 13 years has rolled by, aforementioned case has not been decided till date. With reference to the averments made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is urged by learned counsel for petitioner that all the respondents in aforementioned case have put in appearance. With reference to the order sheet of aforementioned case, copy of which is appended as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, learned counsel for petitioner submits that delay in disposal of aforementioned case cannot be attributed to the petitioner. At this juncture, the learned counsel for petitionr has invited the attention of Court to the order dated 08.02.2012 passed in in Writ C-No. 6635 of 2012 (Chandra Bali Vs. Addl. Commissioner and others). For ready reference the order dated 08.02.2012 is reproduced herein under:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court for seeking a direction upon respondent no. 1 Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi to decide appeal no. 35 of 2004 ( Chandra Bali and Others Vs. Raja Ram and Others) filed under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act within a stipulated period of time with further prayer that respondents no. 2 to 4 be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession over gata no. 35 situate at Mauja-Pura Gambhir, Tehsil-Badlapur, District Jaunpur till the decision of the appeal.

Respondents no. 2 to 5 instituted suit no. 184/224 under Section 229-B of the Act. It was decreed on 26.5.2004. The said judgment, order and decree has been challenged by the petitioner in the above-referred appeal before the Additional Commissioner Varanasi Division, Varanasi. The appeal was filed on 13.7.2004.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal is pending for the last 8 years and is not being decided.

The Court has experienced that every day about 5 to 10 writ petitions are coming on the land revenue side and under the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act with similar prayer to get the case/suit, appeal or revision or applications pending therein be decided within a time bound period. It has also been noticed that in almost all such cases apart from delay being caused by the contesting private parties, the delay in disposal appears to be on account of the fact that either the officer is not posted or available or is busy in some administrative work; and for the reason that adjournment prayed for has been granted casually.

It is settled that speedy justice is part of a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, all litigation must come to an end at the earliest.

The Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon and others vs. State of Bihar AIR 1979 S.C. 1360 held that any procedure which does not ensure a reasonable quick trial cannot be regarded as fair and just and it would fall foul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, speedy trial which mean reasonable expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

A three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Bal Krishna Vidur Vs. State of U.P. held that delay in framing of charges is negation of principles of speedy trial and courts should not be casual in dealing with such cases and keep them pending for long periods.

A Division Bench of this Court in Manoj Kumar and others vs. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deoria (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1767 and others while dealing with the delay in disposal of execution was shocked to note that the execution was being adjourned for the last 7 years and thus expressing displeasure directed for its disposal within two months from the date of presentation of the order before the court concerned. The Court observed that the judiciary exists for the people and not for lawyers and Judges.

In Mangat Ram Tanwar and another Vs. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1080 the Supreme Court while dealing with a similar kind of problem relating to delay in disposal of the land acquisition cases directed the State Government to decide all land references under Section 18 within a time bound period of three months with the outer limit of six months.

In Suresh Pal Vs. Civil Judge, Hapur 2011 (112) RD 291: 2011 (8) ADJ 874 I have myself held that the delay in executing the decree amounts to denying the decree holder the benefit of it which is antithesis to the concept of justice.

It may be noted that non disposal of the cases within a time bound period is unnecessarily burdening this Court with writ petitions seeking directions as above. Such writ petitions, can be avoided and much time of this Court can be saved, if the revenue courts adhere to a particular time schedule for disposal of all cases.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that not only land acquisition cases or other cases for which time period for disposal has been prescribed, all cases including revenue cases and cases arising under the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act should also be decided within a time specified.

Time management for disposal of cases is necessary to tackle the problem of arrears and pendency.

Accordingly, I issue a general mandamus that atleast in revenue cases and cases arising under the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act, the courts/authorities must follow a set time table for disposal of cases as provided herein below:-

1. All suits/original proceedings under UP Z.A. and LR Act be decided within a period of one year from their institution with the outer limit of one year six months;

2. All appeals arising thereto be decided within a period of four months and within the maximum period of six months from the filing;

3. All revisions be decided within three months and within the maximum period of four months from the filing; and

4. All miscellaneous applications, if pressed, which do not require disposal along with cases/suit, appeal or revision be decided within six weeks of their filing with the outer limit of three months.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with the direction upon respondent no. 1 to decide the above appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible as per the time schedule laid down above.

Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent by the Registry of this Court to the Chief Secretary, Revenue State of U.P, and the Chairman, Board of Revenue at Lucknow and Allahabad for circulation to all revenue courts and authorities for necessary compliance.

Order Date :- 8.2.2012 "

5. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent-2, Additional District Magistrate (F/R), District Azamgarh was under a judicial mandate to decide aforementioned case within the time period provided in the order dated 08.02.2012. However, the respondent no.2 has completely ignored the judicial mandate as noted above. On the above conspectus, learned counsel for petitioner submits that interest of justice shall be served in case a positive direction is issued by this Court to respondent-2 Additional District Magistrate (F/R), District Azamgarh to decide aforementioned case filed by petitioner within a time period fixed by this Court.

6. The learned standing counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel representing respondent-5 do not oppose the equitable prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned standing counsel representing respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel representing respondent-5, Gram Panchayat and upon perusal of record this court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no. 2, Additional District Magistrate (F/R), District Azamgarh to decide case No D202215060003379 under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 (Kamlesh Vs. Paras) dated 28.12.2010 regarding to village Basahi Bandedaspur, Pargana & Tehsil-NIzamabad, District-Azamgarh filed by petitioner with all expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and positively within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 6.2.2024