Allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2021WRIC/23176/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of proceedings due to inordinate delay. Court issued mandamus directing the Tehsildar to decide the case within three months, ensure regular hearings, and impose costs for unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing the Tehsildar to decide the case within three months, ensure hearings part per law, and impose costs for unnecessary adjournments.

Dhirendra Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23176 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Dhirendra Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The petition arises out of proceedings taken out under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by the petitioner which came to be registered as Case No. 5414 of 2020 (Dhirendra Vs. Durga Prasad) computer case No. T202015060705414 before the revenue court.

¶6

Sri Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private defendants to the suit have already entered appearance and tendered their objections. He calls attention to the order sheet of the court below as well as the objection appended as annexure-3 to this petition. It is contended that there is no reasonable cause for delay in deciding the aforesaid proceedings. Further the statutory timeline for concluding the said proceedings as provided under Rule 34 (7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 has long expired.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities are under statutory obligation to decide the proceedings in the manner and time frame prescribed by law.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

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.

¶10

Proceedings were instituted in the year 2020. The time line

¶11

provided for deciding such proceedings has long expired. The order sheet does not disclose good cause for the inordinate delay in deciding the proceedings.

¶12

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

¶13

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No. 2/ Tehsildar Sagari, District Azamgarh to execute the following directions:

¶14

(I) The respondent No. 2/ Tehsildar Sagari, District Azamgarh shall decide Case No. 5414 of 2020 (Dhirendra Vs. Durga Prasad) computer case No. T202015060705414 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(V) The respondent No. 2/ Tehsildar Sagari, District Azamgarh shall give short dates in the suit proceedings.

¶19

(VI) The respondent No. 2/ Tehsildar Sagari, District Azamgarh, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶20

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

¶21

(VIII) If necessary, the respondent No. 2/ Tehsildar Sagari, District Azamgarh, shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above timeline of three months to decide the suit is strictly adhered to.

¶22

(IX) 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 stipulated period of three months shall accordingly be enhanced.

¶23

It is clarified that this Court has not entered into merits of the controversy. It is for the respondent No. 2/ Tehsildar Sagari, District Azamgarh to decide the issue after independent application of mind and in accordance with law.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.9.2021 Nadeem

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Jaiswal 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

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

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

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

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