Allowed

Kailash Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2021WRIC/23172/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hata, U.P., directing the disposal of pending partition proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within six months as per Rule 109(10) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, after noting the inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

A writ of mandamus was issued directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the suit within six months, recording notice to parties, giving short dates, and imposing costs for adjournments.

Kailash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23172 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Kailash Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The petition arises out of proceedings taken out under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for partition of land holdings. All parties to the suit are members of the same family. The suit was instituted by the respondent No. 3/ Jai Ram Singh which was registered as Case No. 201905440202635 (Jairam Singh Vs. Kailash Singh and others). The petitioner is a defendant in the suit.

¶6

Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid proceedings have not been decided till date. The statutory time period for deciding the suit has long expired. There is no good reason for inordinate delay in deciding the case. It is further submitted that undue delay in a final decision of the case is disturbing the harmony of the family.

¶7

The only prayer made by Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities are under an obligation of law to make efforts to decide the proceedings in a manner and the time period prescribed in the statute. However he contends that in the anxiety of deciding the suit expeditiously, the court below cannot waive the need for noticing all the parties to the suit.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

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.

¶11

Proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, for division of land holdings are liable to be decided as per the procedure laid down in various provisions including Rules 107, 108 and 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. Rule 109(10) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, is relevant to the controversy is extracted hereinbelow:

¶12

"(10) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall make an endeavour to decide the suit within the period of six months and if the suit is not decided within such period, the reason shall be recorded."

¶13

Admittedly the said statutory period for deciding the suit has expired. There is no reasonable cause for delay in the final decision in the case. It appears from the record that all parties to the suit have entered appearance before the court below. However this is a fact which needs to be ascertained in the first instance by the court below before proceeding in the matter.

¶14

No useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court.

¶15

The matter is remitted to the court below/respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar.

¶16

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the court below/respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar, to execute the following directions:

¶17

(I) The court below/ respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar shall record a finding that all parties to the suit have been duly noticed and

¶18

shall decide the suit thereafter.

¶19

(II) The court below/respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar, shall decide the proceedings registered as Case No. 201905440202635 (Jairam Singh Vs. Kailash Singh and others), in accordance with the procedure and the time frame of six months as provided under the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 from the date of receipt of 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.

¶20

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

¶21

(IV) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the court below/respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar .

¶22

(IV) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the court below/respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar, or adopts dilatory tactics, court below/respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶23

(V) The court below/respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar, shall give short dates in the proceedings.

¶24

(VI) The court below/respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar, shall not grant any

¶25

unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶26

(VII) In case an adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the court below/respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Hata, District Kushinagar, shall impose costs not below Rs. 500/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶27

(VIII) If necessary, the court below shall proceed with the hearing of the case on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of six months to decide the case is strictly adhered to.

¶28

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

¶29

Order Date :- 17.9.2021 Nadeem

Kailash Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Ajad Khan Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Reeta Vs the State of U P and 4 Others

Nath Saran Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhirendra Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Malka Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Maharaj Kumari Vishnu Priya Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others