Allahabad High Court
Rajkali vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 10 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85059
Court No. - 53
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14690 of 2024
Petitioner :- Rajkali
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of the present petition, prayer for expeditious and time bound disposal of Case No. 4070 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202202030304070) ( Rajkali vs. Kallu Ram) under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been made.
3. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad vs. The State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 3589 of 2023), decided on 29.02.2024, reported in 2024 (3) ADJ 295 (SC) has observed that no direction to dispose of cases in a time bound manner be issued by the Constitutional Courts, except in exceptional circumstances. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:-
"37. ......
a. .......
b. .......
c. Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending; and"
(emphasis supplied)"
4. A perusal of the order sheet shows that only general dates are being fixed without mentioning as to what happened on the said dates. Since the proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are summary in nature and the same were instituted in 2022, a case for expeditious disposal stands made out.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(a). The court/ authority concerned where the aforesaid matter is pending, is directed to finally decide the same on its own merits, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties within a period of four months from the date a certified/self attested copy of this order is produced before it;
(b). In case, the lawyers remain on strike, which has successively been held to be unconstitutional and illegal by the Apex Court in the cases of Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another, AIR, 2003 SC 736; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409; Krishnakant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2018 (17) SCC 27 and Hussain v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, the period, during which, the lawyers abstain themselves from work, shall remain excluded from the period fixed by this Court for disposal of the aforesaid matter;
(c). Since the petitioner side has come up for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid matter, in case, any adjournment is sought by the petitioner side before the court/ authority concerned, the benefit conferred under this order shall stand automatically discharged and vacated and the court/ authority concerned would not be obliged to decide the lis within the time frame fixed by this Court;
(d). It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated or commented upon merits of the aforesaid matter and it is for the court concerned to decide the same strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and on its own merits and maintainability etc., after providing full opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties; and
(e). The petitioner(s) are directed to serve a photostat copy of this order on the learned counsel representing the contesting party(ies) appearing before the court/authority concerned prior to filing of certified/self attested copy of this order before the court/authority concerned.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
Sazia
