Allowed

Sada Hussain (Since Deceased) and 4 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 16 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021WRIB/227/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus to decide a long-pending land consolidation case and an interim application delayed by lawyer strikes. The court directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the case within one year, impose costs for unnecessary adjournments, and take disciplinary action against striking lawyers.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to decide case within one year; cost for unnecessary adjournments; direction to take action against striking counsels.

Sada Hussain (Since Deceased) and 4 Others… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 227 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sada Hussain (Since Deceased) And 4 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 16 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kirt Raj Yadav,Mohd Hamid Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. Nill of 2021.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Amendment application is allowed.

¶8

Necessary amendment to be carried out during the course of the day.

¶9

Order on Writ Petition:

¶10

Sri Mohd. Hamid, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners instituted proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, registered as Case No. 1877 of 1994 (Sada Hussain Vs. Hadisani) before the respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar, in the year 1994. However the same has not been decided till date. Attention of the Court has also been called to the order sheet of the case.

¶11

The only prayer made by Sri Mohd. Hamid, learned counsel for the petitioner is that Case No. 1877 of 1994 (Sada Hussain Vs. Hadisani) pending before the respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar, may be decided within stipulated period of time.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel contends that the authorities are under obligation to decide the appeal within a reasonable

¶13

period of time.

¶14

The order sheet discloses that the lawyers in the Consolidation Courts have been perpetually on strike. The system has ground to a halt. The order-sheet contains irrefutable evidence that the process of the courts was impeded by lawyers abstaining from work on account of strike calls. Counsels cannot hold the judicial process to ransom by irresponsibly going on strike and bringing the work in the court to a stand still. Such conduct of the lawyers is in the teeth of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported at (2003) 2 SCC 45 as well as in Krishnakant Tamrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported at AIR 2018 SC 3635.

¶15

The process of law has to run its course unimpeded by any such obstructions. The courts have to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law even when the parties or counsels are not cooperating with the trial proceedings. The court proceedings cannot come to a stand still owing to striking lawyers and lethargic litigants.

¶16

In the wake of preceding discussion, the matter is remitted to the respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar.

¶17

The petitioner has also filed an interim application. However, the same has not been decided till date.

¶18

The Consolidation Officer before whom the interim application is pending, is directed to decide the interim application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of

¶19

this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

¶20

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar, to execute the following directions:

¶21

(1) The respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar, shall decide the case, registered as Case No. 1877 of 1994 (Sada Hussain Vs. Hadisani) within a period of one year from the receipt of copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶22

(2) All parties to the lis shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed.

¶23

(3) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceeding before the respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar.

¶24

(4) In case the parties do not cooperate in the proceedings before the respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar, or adopt dilatory tactics the before the respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar shall record a findings to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶25

(5) The respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar, shall proceed on day to day basis, if required, to ensure that the above stipulated time line of one year for

¶26

deciding the case is strictly adhered to.

¶27

(6) The respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar, shall not grant unnecessary adjournments. In case adjournment is granted cost of Rs. 5,000/- shall be imposed on party seeking adjournment.

¶28

(7) In case counsels do not appear on ground of strike, the before the respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar, shall record the names of the absent counsels in the order sheet. The respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar, shall thereafter direct the parties to appear in person.

¶29

(8) The parties to the lis are directed to cooperate and shall appear in person before the respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar, in case their counsels are on strike.

¶30

(9) The respondents No. 3/ Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar, shall record the names of defaulting/ striking counsels and send them to the Bar Counsel of U.P. for appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶31

(10) The Bar Counsel of U.P. shall take appropriate action against such counsels within a period of four months from the receipt of such complaint from the Consolidation Officer, Kushi Nagar.

¶32

(11) The result of the enquiry and the action taken by the Bar Counsel of U.P. shall be submitted to the Registrar General of this Court.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

Order Date :- 10.2.2021 Dhananjai

Sada Hussain (Since Deceased) and 4 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 16 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sada Hussain (Since Deceased) and 4 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 16 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanhai and 2 Others Vs Consolidation Officer and Another

Ram Kunvari(Deceased) and 5 Others Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Ram Samujh and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Jalil Ahmad Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Another

Ram Swaroop Vs D.D.C. and Others

Namita Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others