Allowed

Ashish Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Sept 2021WRIC/24785/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in this writ petition addressed the inordinate delay by a Tehsildar in deciding suit proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code. The court issued mandatory directions for proper service of notices, recording of findings, and disposal of the suit within three months, with provisions for enhanced timelines due to the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued directing the court below to ensure service of notice, record findings, decide the suit within three months, and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Ashish Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24785 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ashish Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dan Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dan Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2-State.

¶6

The writ petition arises out of proceedings taken out under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by the petitioner which came to be registered as Suit No.546 of 2020 (Ashish Singh Vs. Vanshpati Singh) before the learned court below/Tehsildar, TehsilHandia, District-Prayagraj.

¶7

Sri Dan Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole defendant in the proceedings before the learned court below, who is the respondent No.3 in this writ petition has 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.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

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 to proceed with the matter.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

In the wake of the preceding discussion interest of justice will be served by remitting the matter to learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, DistrictPrayagraj.

¶15

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the learned court below/Tehsildar, TehsilHandia, District-Prayagraj, to execute the following

¶16

directions:

¶17

(I) The learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj, shall ensure service of notice upon the private defendant and all necessary parties to the lis and record a finding to this effect before proceeding with the matter on merits.

¶18

(II) The learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj, shall decide the Suit No.546 of 2020 (Ashish Singh Vs. Vanshpati Singh), 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.

¶19

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

¶20

(IV) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj. (V) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned court below/Tehsildar, TehsilHandia, District-Prayagraj, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶21

(VI) The learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj, shall give short dates in the suit proceedings.

¶22

(VII) The learned court below/Tehsildar, TehsilHandia, District-Prayagraj, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶23

(VIII) In case an adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, District-Prayagraj, shall impose costs not below Rs.500/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶24

(IX) If necessary, the learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, 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.

¶25

(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. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Ashish Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Balwant Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manmohan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Suresh Pal Singh Vs the Deputy Commissioner and 3 Others

Bhairo Pratap Singh and 7 Others Vs Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits Prayagraj and 3 Others

C/M, Gopi Nath Vidhi Mahavdhyalaya and Another Vs Bar Council of India and Another

Smt. Komal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others