Bijendra @ Bijendra Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15255 of 2021

Petitioner :- Bijendra @ Bijendra Kumar Nishad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Yadav,Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

¶6

The writ petition arises out of proceedings taken out under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by the petitioner which came to be registered as Case No. 649 of 2021, Computerized Case No.T202115060600649, Bijendra Vs. Sanjay, before the learned court below.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that notices upon all private defendants in the proceedings before the court below have been served and the defendants tendered their objections. The instructions are taken in the record.

¶8

Shri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private defendants have already entered appearance before the learned court below. Attention is called to the order sheet of the learned court below. It is contended that there is no reasonable cause for delay in deciding the aforesaid proceedings. The learned court below has not adhered to the statutory time limit to decide the matter.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities are

¶10

under statutory obligation to decide the proceedings in the manner and time frame prescribed by law. However, the learned court below have to ascertain that all the parties to the lis have been duly served notices.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

There is merit in the contention of learned Standing Counsel that the learned court below while adhering to the stipulated timeline prescribed in the statute, cannot waive or relax the requirements of procedural propriety and noticing all parties to the lis. The learned court below shall return a specific finding of sufficiency of service upon all defendants to the lis and after recording such satisfaction proceed with the matter.

¶13

No lis can remain pending indefinitely before a court of law. Prolonged pendency of a lis without good cause may lead to miscarriage of justice.

¶14

The order sheet does not disclose good cause for the inordinate delay in deciding the proceedings. The statutory time for deciding the matter under Rule 34(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 has long expired.

¶15

According to the petitioner, the contesting defendants in the lis have entered appearance before the learned court below.

¶16

In the wake of the preceding discussion, interest of justice will be served by remitting the matter to respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh.

¶17

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding

¶18

the respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, DistrictAzamgarh, to execute the following directions:

¶19

(I) The respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall notice all the defendants to the lis and record satisfaction of service of notice upon the defendants before proceeding with the matter.

¶20

(II) The respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall decide the Case No. 649 of 2021, Computerized Case No.T202115060600649, Bijendra Vs. Sanjay, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 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.

¶21

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

¶22

(IV) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, TehsilBudhanpur, District-Azamgarh.

¶23

(V) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent No.2/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh or adopts dilatory tactics, the respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶24

(VI) The respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh shall give short dates in the said proceedings.

¶25

(VII) The respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶26

(VIII) In case an adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, TehsilBudhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall impose costs not below Rs.500/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶27

(IX) If necessary, the respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, TehsilBudhanpur, District-Azamgarh, shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated time period to decide the case is strictly adhered to.

¶28

(X) This order is being passed when the threat of Covid-19 pandemic still exists. In case the court proceedings are held up due to Covid-19 outbreak, the lost working days shall be adjusted and the above stipulated time period shall accordingly be enhanced.

¶29

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶30

Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Dhananjai

Bijendra @ Bijendra Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijendra @ Bijendra Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.S.D. College of Higher Education and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Lali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sukhpal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt.Sonmati Devi Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sundarkant Pandey and Another

Sudama Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others