Panna Lal And 9 Others vs State Of U.P. And 26 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 3245 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Panna Lal And 9 Others vs State Of U.P. And 26 Others on 6 February, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:20586
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44057 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Panna Lal And 9 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 26 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Maurya,Om Narayan Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Om Narayan Dwivedi, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners have approached this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding Respondent 3, Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Phoolpur, Allahabad to decide restoration application dated 05.02.2022 filed by respondent 25, Ram Lakhan in Case No. 16 of 2020 (Panna Lal and Others Vs. Mahadev and Others), under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 seeking recall of the order dated 06.12.2021.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated by the petitioners, which came to be allowed vide final order dated 06.12.2021. Subsequently, respondent 25, Ram Lakhan has filed a recall application dated 05.02.2022 seeking recall of the order dated 06.12.2021. The recall application filed by respondent 25, Ram Lakhan came to be registered as Case No. 16 of 2020 (Panna Lal and Others Vs. Mahadev and Others), under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that restoration application filed by respondent 25 has remained pending for the last one year. Attention of the Court was then invited to the order sheet of aforementioned case, copy of which is on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition and on basis thereof, it is urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that delay in disposal of aforementioned case, cannot be attributed to the petitioners.

6. Reference was then made to the provisions contained in Section 24(3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and on basis thereof, it is urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that Respondent 3, Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Phoolpur, Allahabad is under a legislative mandate to finally decide the proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of 3 months. However, aforementioned legislative mandate has been given a complete go-by.

7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for petitioners also referred to the judgment of this Court dated 08.02.2012 passed in WRIT-C No. 6635 of 2012 (Chandra Bali Vs. Addl. Commissioner And Others). For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:-

"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"

8. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the restoration application filed by respondent 25 ought to have been decided by Respondent 3, Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Phoolpur, Allahabad within a period of 6 weeks. However, aforementioned judicial mandate has been totally ignored by Respondent 3, Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Phoolpur, Allahabad. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that interest of justice shall be served, in case, a positive direction is issued by this Court to Respondent 3, Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Phoolpur, Allahabad to decide the restoration application filed by respondent 25, Ram Lakhan in aforementioned case within a time period fixed by this Court.

9. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1, 2, 3 and Mr. Azad Rai, the learned counsel representing Respondent 27 do not oppose the equitable prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioners.

10. Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel, the learned counsel representing respondent 27 and upon perusal of record this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off finally with a direction to Respondent 3, Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Phoolpur, Allahabad to decide the restoration application filed by respondent 25 and registered as Case No. 16 of 2020 (Panna Lal and Others Vs. Mahadev and Others), under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and positively within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 6.2.2024

Vinay