Dismissed

Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2021WRIC/24217/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged inordinate delay in deciding revenue proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The court found procedural improprieties regarding service of notices and expired timelines. It issued a mandamus directing the Tehsildar to serve notices, strictly adhere to a three-month deadline, prevent unnecessary adjournments, and provide opportunities of hearing to all parties,

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued commanding the Tehsildar to serve notices, decide the case within three months with hearing to all parties, prevent unnecessary adjournments, and impose costs for delays.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24217 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dan Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The petition arises out of proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 registered as Case No. 579 of 2019 Computer Case No. T201902030401986 (Sushil Kumar Vs. Smt. Meera Devi).

¶6

Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents No. 6 and 7, who are objectors have entered appearance however respondents No. 6 and 7 are not filing their objections only to delay the proceedings. He calls attention to the order sheet of the learned court below appended as annexure-3 to this writ petition. The petitioner had purchased the land from the respondents No.5. 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.

¶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. However, the learned court below has to ascertain that all the parties to the lis have been duly served notices.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

There is merit in the contention of learned Standing Counsel that the learned court below while adhering to the stipulated

¶10

timeline prescribed in the statute, cannot waive or relax the requirements of procedural propriety and noticing all parties to the lis.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

In the wake of the preceding discussion interest of justice will be served by remitting the matter to respondent No.3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj.

¶14

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj, to execute the following directions:

¶15

(I) The respondent No.3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, DistrictPrayagraj, shall ensure service of notice upon all the defendants including respondent No. 5 to the lis and record a finding of satisfaction of service before proceeding with the matter on merits.

¶16

(II) The respondent No.3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, DistrictPrayagraj shall decide Case No.579 of 2019, Computerized Case No.T201902030401986 (Sushil Kumar Vs. Smt. Meera Devi) 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.

¶17

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

¶18

(IV) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the respondent No.3/ Tehsildar, TehsilHandia, District-Prayagraj.

¶19

(V) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent No.3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, DistrictPrayagraj or adopts dilatory tactics, the respondent No.3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶20

(VI) The respondent No.3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, DistrictPrayagraj shall give short dates in the suit proceedings.

¶21

(VII) The respondent No.3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, DistrictPrayagraj, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶22

(VIII) In case an adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, respondent No.3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj, shall impose costs not below Rs.500/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶23

(IX) If necessary, the respondent No.3/ Tehsildar, TehsilHandia, District-Prayagraj, shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above timeline of three months to decide the suit is strictly adhered to.

¶24

(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 stipulated period of three months shall accordingly be enhanced.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.9.2021/Nadeem

Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 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

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

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

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sundarkant Pandey and Another

Bhullar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Uma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Surendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others