# Amar Singh & Ors v. D.D.C. Agra & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 1045
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-02
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 7376 of 1980
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amar-singh-ors-v-d-d-c-agra-ors-50671
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 9-A(2),
11 & 48 - Dispute regarding pedigree
and share in agricultural holding -
Evidence of Genealogy Priest (Panda)
and documents maintained in 'Bahi' -
Accepted by Revisional Authority -
Held: In absence of strong and reliable
contrary evidence, Panda's oral and
documentary evidence maintained in
regular course of tradition and having
corroboration from past entries cannot
be
discarded
-
Revisional
Court's
interference under Section 48 justified
- Petition dismissed after 43 years -
Court emphasizes need for collective
responsibility of Bar and Bench in
avoiding judicial delays.

Held:
"The oral evidence of Genealogy Priest
(Panda) supported by documents of his Bahi
has more weight in comparison to oral
evidence of petitioners' witnesses. There is
no reasonable ground to disbelieve the
evidence of Panda. Revisional Authority
rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section
48 of the Act. No illegality found in the
impugned order. Writ petition dismissed.
Further, this Court cannot ignore the delay
of more than 43 years in deciding the
matter - Justice delayed is justice denied -
Bar
and
Bench
both
must
accept
responsibility and work for timely disposal
of cases."(Para 25, 26, 27)

Case law relied on:

## Text

8 All. Amar Singh & Ors. Vs. D.D.C. Agra & Ors.
1045
inquiry against the writ petitioner from the
stage of submission of the reply dated
27.09.2015 to the charge sheet dated
31.08.2015; (e) the inquiry shall be
conducted and concluded within a period of
four months from the date of production of
the certified copy of the order by either of
the parties strictly in accordance with law,
as per the rules governing the field and
after
affording
opportunity
to
the
delinquent employee; (f) the writ petitioner
shall render full cooperation in the inquiry
proceedings; (g) the grant of consequential
benefits including arrears of salary, and
other allied benefits shall be subject to the
outcome and the fate of the inquiry
proceedings.

52. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition stands partly allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1045
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ-B No. 7376 of 1980

Amar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C. Agra & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.P. Tiwari, Sri H.N. Singh, Sri Satyam Singh,
Sri Shiv Nath Singh, Sri Surya Bhan Singh, Sri
Yadvendra Krishna

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, A.C.S.C., Sri Man
Bahadur Singh, Sri Rajeev Kumar, Sri Nagendra
Singh Chaudhary, Sri R.P. Singh

Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 9-A(2),
11 & 48 - Dispute regarding pedigree
and share in agricultural holding -
Evidence of Genealogy Priest (Panda)
and documents maintained in 'Bahi' -
Accepted by Revisional Authority -
Held: In absence of strong and reliable
contrary evidence, Panda's oral and
documentary evidence maintained in
regular course of tradition and having
corroboration from past entries cannot
be
discarded
-
Revisional
Court's
interference under Section 48 justified
- Petition dismissed after 43 years -
Court emphasizes need for collective
responsibility of Bar and Bench in
avoiding judicial delays.

Held:
"The oral evidence of Genealogy Priest
(Panda) supported by documents of his Bahi
has more weight in comparison to oral
evidence of petitioners' witnesses. There is
no reasonable ground to disbelieve the
evidence of Panda. Revisional Authority
rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section
48 of the Act. No illegality found in the
impugned order. Writ petition dismissed.
Further, this Court cannot ignore the delay
of more than 43 years in deciding the
matter - Justice delayed is justice denied -
Bar
and
Bench
both
must
accept
responsibility and work for timely disposal
of cases."(Para 25, 26, 27)

Case law relied on:

1. Dukh Haran Tewary & ors. Vs Dulhin Bihasa
Kuer & anr., AIR 1963 Pat 390

2. The Collector of Farrukhabad Vs Gajraj Singh,
15 Ind Cas 625

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned
counsel for petitioners, Sri Man Bahadur
Singh and Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned
counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri
Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional
C.S.C. for State.
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Facts in brief are that the disputed
land are Khata No.94 area 6.47 acres and
Khata No.4 area 2.01 acres situated in
village-Shittalpur, Pargana- Etah Saket,
District-Etah. The said village was brought
under consolidation operations, wherein an
objection was filed by one of original
petitioners under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Act
of 1953) that the share of Satya Ram S/o
Bhoj Raj (original respondent No.4) in land
in dispute was 1/3 and it was wrongly been
shown as 1/2 in basic year, which required
a correction.

3. According to petitioners pedigree
of parties to lis is as follows:-

Whereas per contra, the pedigree as
given by respondents is as follows :-

4. The Consolidation Officer, after
considering the facts, oral and documentary
evidence on record vide order dated
16.08.1976, has rejected the objections set
up by original respondent No.4 and
maintained the basic year entry, holding
him to be co-sharers of land in question,
only to the extent of 1/3 share. The relevant
findings returned by the Consolidation
Officer are as follows:-

"इस तरह से जहाँ ति वांशावली िा सवाल है सत्यराम यह
साकबत नही िर सिे कि भोजराज कगरवर िे लडिे थे और यह बात
ितई तौर पर साकबत हो जाती है कि भोजराज मनभावन िे लडिे थे
और जहाँ ति शजरा बनवारी बगैरहा ने कदया है वह सही है सत्यराम
ने गलत शजरा कहस्सा ज्यादा पाने िी गरज से कदया है।"

xxx

"उपरोक्त िे आिार पर जमीन िी आइडेन्टी और िन्टीनटी
एि नहीं रह जाती है और यकद जमीन िी आइडेकन्टटी और
िन्टीकनटी एि ही है तो वह मूरसान िी पैदा िी हुई नहीं िही जा
सिती है इसिे अलावा सत्यराम िा बहुत कनकित िेश है कि
आराजी कनजाई गांगाराम िी पैदा िी हुई है मगर सत्यराम िोई भी
िागज ऐसा दाकखल नही िर सिे कजससे यह कसद्ध हो सिता कि
िोई जमीन िभी भी गांगाराम िे नाम रही हो जबकि बनवारी आकद
िा कनकित िेश यह है आराजी कनजाई में िुछ जमीन कगरवर व
मनभावन िे नाम और थी जो उन्होने पैदा िी थी मगर उन्होने छोड
कदया था।"

xxx

" ऐसी सूरत में आइडेन्टी और िन्टीनटी साकबत होना
कनहायत जरूरी है उपरोक्त से यह कसद्ध हो जाता है कि भूकम कनजाई
िी आयडेन्टी है न िन्टीकनटी है।"

(Emphasis supplied)

5. Two appeals were preferred under
Section 11 of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 against above referred
order and both were dismissed by an order
dated 23.10.1978 passed by the Settlement
8 All. Amar Singh & Ors. Vs. D.D.C. Agra & Ors.
1047
Officer,
Consolidation.
The
relevant
findings thereof are as follows:-

"1901 में कववाकदत भूकम िा रिबा 13-10 एिड मन
भावन व कगरवर िे पास था। 1931 िे जमीदारी बटवारे में भी यही
रिबा यह िे वाद 24 बीघा जमीन बेची गई। और इसी िा रिबा
अब भूकम िा रिबा 8-50 एिड रह गया है। इसकलये यह तिद
गलत है कि 1901 से अब ति भूकम िी एि रूपता तथा
तररतम्यता समाप्त हो गई है। 1347 फ० में व 1336 फ० में
सत्यराम डाल चन्र अमर कसांह और तुरसी दजद थे यकद अमर कसांह
और तुरसी दजद थे यकद अमर कसांह आकद िो सत्यराम िा कहस्सा
हडपना होता, 1347 व 1336 िी प्रकवकष्टयों िे आिार पर
सत्यराम िा 1/4 अांश भी िह सिते थे अमर कसांह आकद िी ओर
से जबानी सबूत में जाकलम कसांह गवाह है कजनिी उम्र 85 साल है
पेश हुआ इसिा बयान है कि कगरवर कसांह अक्षम व्यकक्त थे उनिी
शादी नहीं हुई थी और मनभावन िे राम लाल लडिा नहीं था
बकल्ि भोजराज लडिा था जाकलम कसांह शीतलपुर िा ही रहने
वाला है कचत्तर कसांह िी आयु 75 वर्द है और उसने कजरह में िहा है
कि, कगरवर िी शादी नहीं हुई थी उन पैर में खुजली और आँख में
फली थी भोजराज मन भावन िा लडिा था। +

उपरोक्त से प्रिट है कि सत्यराम भोजराज िा लडिा है और
भोजराज िा लडिा है और भोजराज मन भावन िा लडिा था इस
प्रिार दोनो अपील िे अविाकनि है च०अ०िा कनणदय सही है इसमें
हस्तक्षेप िी आवश्यिता नही है।"

(Emphasis supplied)

6. The original respondent No.4 being
aggrieved by above referred orders filed a
revision under Section 48 of Act of 1953,
which was allowed by impugned order
17.05.1980. The relevant part of order is
mentioned hereinafter :-

"अब सवाल इस बात िा है कि भोजराज किसिा लडिा है
मनभावन िा यह कगरवर िा। इसमें दोनो ओर से जुबानी सहादत दी गई
है। सदाकशव पांडा िी ओर से जो िागज दाकखल हुये है उसमे भोजराज
कगरवर िे बेटे कलखे हैं। यह पेपर फाइल पर 16/1, 16/2 व 16/3
है। इन िागजातों में तो इस खानदान िे अन्य लोगों िा कववरण कदया है
वह दोनो पक्षों िे कदये गये कववरणों से िाफी तालमेल खाता है।

प्रकतपक्षी िा िेस यह है कि पहले यह जमीन मनभावन व
कगरवर िी थी और वाद में तुलसी, मुरली व भोगराज ने दुबारा पैदा
िी।

मैने पूरे िागजात िा अध्ययन किया पर ऐसी िोई चीज न
कमली कजससे कि यह पता चलता कि यह दुबारा पैदा िी गई है।
अगर रिबा बढा है तो वह उन्ही नम्बरों में बढा है जो पहले थे और
प्रत्येि बन्दोबस्त में ऐसा होता भी है। इसिा प्रमाण इसी बात से है
कि जमीन िी वैयत एि सी बदस्तूर है। प्रकतपक्ष िी ओर से यह
िहा गया कि पांडे िी बही िा इन्राज मानने योग्य नहीं है। मैने यह
बही कजसिा कि हवाला कदया गया है तो नहीं देखी, पर स्वयां सोरों
िे पांडे जो अपने कजजमानो िे बारे में सूचना रखते हैं और सूचना
रखने िी जो िायदप्रणाली अपनाते है उसिो देखा। उसमें वह लोग
किसी िे अकििारों िो या जायदाद में कहस्सों िो ध्यान में रखिर
नहीं बनाते बकल्ि खानदान िे आदकमयों िा और उनिे सम्बकन्ियों
िा ही नाम पता आकद इसकलए रखते हैं कि उनिे कजजमानों िा पूरा
पूरा ज्ञान उनिो हो। पांडा िी जो तीन िागज फाइल पर है वह
बनावटी नहीं प्रतीत होते है और न प्रकतपक्ष ने िोई ऐसा सबूत कदया
कि जो वांशावली दूसरे पक्ष ने यानी ररवीजनिताद ने दी है वह त्रुकटपूणद
है जो जमीन बढी है वह भी पूरे खाते में बढी है। िेवल यह बात
मानना कि तीन आदकमयों ने तीन खेत 8,8 बीघे िे बेचे यह कसद्ध
नहीं िरता कि वह पूरे जमीन में कतहाई िे कहस्सेदार हैं।

अमर कसांह आकद िी ओर से जो गवाह पेश हुये है जाकलम
और कचत्तर। उनिी गवाही पर कवश्वास किया जाना उकचत प्रतीत नहीं
होता। कचत्तर कसांह िहते है कि जमीन उनिे सामने उठाई गई थी
परन्तु यह िहते है कि जब जमीन उठाई गई थी तो मनभावन उससे
पहले ही मर चुिे है। अगर ऐसा है तो मनभावन िा नाम 1901 में
िैसे आ गया। प्रकतपक्ष में ऐसा िोई सबूत नहीं कदया कि कजससे
सत्यराम द्वारा कदया गया सजरा गलत कसद्ध हो और न िोई ऐसी बात
िा प्रमाण है कि यह जमीन िभी दुबारा ली गई थी। ररवीजनिताद
िा जो सबूत जबानी है वह उसिे पक्ष िो प्रमाकणत िरने िे कलए
पयादप्त है अतः मै अवर न्यायालय िे आदेशों िो कनरस्त िरते हुये
ररवीजन स्वीिार िरता ह ँ। और आदेश देता ह ँ कि सत्यराम आकद
इस जायदाद में आिे िे और कवपक्षी शेर् आिे भाग िे सजरे िे
अनुसार कहस्सा तदनुसार िागजात में इन्राज किया जावे। "

(Emphasis supplied)

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has
submitted that the Revisional Court has
erroneously placed heavy reliance on
evidence of 'Panda' and documents of his
Bahi, which was placed on record being
document paper No.16/1, 16/2 and 16/3
without being marked as exhibit and as
such they were not duly proved.

8. Learned counsel has further
submitted that the Deputy Director of
1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation has not set aside the findings
returned by the Appellate Court in specific
words. The Revisional Court has not
considered the specific finding returned by
the Appellate Court that identity and
continuity of land does not remain same
and land does not originally belong to
'Ganga Ram' as well as no reasoning was
assigned in impugned order that how land
in question belonged to 'Ganga Ram'.

9. Learned counsel has further
submitted that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation has neither accepted the
finding in regard to pedigree submitted by
petitioners nor given any reason to accept
the pedigree given by respondents.

10. Learned counsel for petitioners
has read out the reasons given by
Consolidation
Officer
and
Settlement
Officer Consolidation as referred above and
has also referred the order passed by
Revisional Court that it has interfered with
a well reasoned order without considering
the factors given in Section 48 of Act of
1953.

11. Learned counsel for contesting
respondents have vehemently opposed the
above submissions and submitted that oral
evidence of 'Panda' i.e. Sadashiv, which
was a relevant document as it was based on
Bahi, was on record. Bahi of Samvat 1973,
1997 and 2022 has disclosed that Bhoj Raj
was son of Girwar. It was a material and
admissible evidence and no better evidence
was available which could contradict it.

12. Learned counsel for respondents
has placed reliance on Dukh Haran
Tewary And Ors. Vs. Dulhin Bihasa
Kuer And Anr. :AIR 1963 Pat 390.
Learned counsel also placed reliance on a
judgment passed by this Court in the case
of The Collector of Farrukhabad Vs.
Gajraj Singh, 15 Ind Cas 625 and the
relevant paragraph thereof is mentioned
hereinafter :-

"In default of this he has sought for
documentary evidence in the books kept by
certain Brahmins known as pandas at
Soran on the Granges and at the sacred
city of Mutfra. These'pandas are priests
who receive pilgrims visiting-sacred places
for purposes of devotion and assist them in
the performance of ceremonies appropriate
to the occasion. Their livelihood depends
on the fees paid them by the pilgrims who
thus employ their services, and there is
doubt that they are exceedingly jealons of
their traditional or prescriptive rights to
receive and minister to all pilgrims
belonging to any family which has once
definitely enrolled itself in their lists of
jaimnns or clients. For this purpose, they
maintain certain books or registers one of
which has been produced before us by the
plaintiff's witness.

xxx

xxx

A good deal of trouble seems to be
taken to keep the entries reiating to
particular villages together or, at any rate,
to facilitate reference when entries relating
to the same village have got into different
parts of the book. There seems, moreover,
to be a certain amount of system employed
in grouping villages together so as to
connect with one another entries relating to
different branches of one and the same
family residing in different villages The
entries themselves consist very largely of
pedigrees
or
fragments
of
pedigrees
sometimes purporting be made by, or at the
dictation of, a particular member of the
family concerned on the occasion of a visit
paid to the Ganges at Soran in a specified
year and month, sometimes merely jotted
8 All. Amar Singh & Ors. Vs. D.D.C. Agra & Ors.
1049
down underneath some other entry, without
any specific record either of the occasion
or of the particular person on whose
authority the entry is made. Of course, the
book is not, and does not profess to be, a
systematic record of family pedigrees. The
pages are not consecutively numbered. It is
admitted that the binding is unstitched and
fresh pages inserted whenever the panda"
finds it convenient to do so. Blank spaces,
and even blank pages, occur from time to
time in the body of the book. It is admitted
that if a page gets very much worn or
tittered, the "panda" will copy out what he
can decipher of the entries upon it on to a
fresh page and will insert the same in its
place. It must, also be borne in mind that
the
"panda" does
not
hold
himself
responsible
for
the
identification
of
pilgrims who appear before him and
represent themselves as being members of
such and such a family."

(Emphasis supplied)

13. Heard Counsel for the parties and
perused the record and written submission
provided by counsel for parties.

14. The dispute is between rival
pedigree submitted by petitioners and
respondents that- Whether Girwar died
issueless? If yes, then whether Bhoj Raj is
son of Manbhawan or, if not, then whether
Bhoj Raj is son of Girwar? and the other
issue is whether land was self acquired by
Ganga Ram or by Manbhawan and Girwar?

15. Parties have tried to prove their
respective pedigree. Respondents' case are
mainly based on the oral evidence of
'Panda' and documents produced by him
being papers from Bahi, to show pedigree
maintained therein.

16. Whereas petitioners' case mainly
rest upon oral evidence of two old persons
stating that Girwar never married and died
issueless and that Bhoj Raj was son of
Manbhawan.

17. The Court has to decide out of
above referred evidences, which are more
reliable i.e. statement of two old persons
from the side of petitioners or statement of
'Panda' along with documents from his
Bahi, provided from respondents' side.

18. The details of family members are
preserved by Pandas (genealogy priest)
which is a very old tradition. They followed
a particular manner to maintain details of
family genealogy/pedigree. Even from
numbers of register they could take out the
relevant register/entry, conveniently. It can
not be presumed that while preparing
record they entered details of pedigree,
keeping in mind that in future, it would be
a part of legal proceeding and, therefore,
entries were made to cause benefit to one
party only. The documents are of Samvat
1973, 1997 and 2022 (i.e. of the year 1916,
1940 and 1965), whereas testimony of
Panda was recorded in the year 1976 i.e.
after 60, 36 and 11 years respectively,
therefore, element of making entry with a
particular intention is absolutely ruled out
as well as there is no contrary material to
disbelief
that
entries
made
in
said
documents were not based on information
given by members of family correctly. In
Dukh Haran Tewary (supra) and The
Collector of Farrukhabad (supra), the
Patna
High
Court
and
this
Court
respectively, have held that it would be
doubtful that they (Pandas) would make
wrong entry to support any one member of
the family.
1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. The next issue for consideration is
that whether documents produced by Panda
(Paper No.16/1, 16/2, 16/3) were part of
genuine Bahi and were duly proved or not.
One Sada Shiv Panda has appeared as
witness. The author of said entries had not
appeared but Sada Shiv Panda who was
also a custodian of record appeared and had
proved
papers
referred
above.
The
Consolidation Officer has rejected the
evidence that Bahi was neither properly
arranged
nor
name
of
village
was
mentioned, however, the Deputy Director
of Consolidation has believed the papers of
Bahi to be genuine in absence of any
contrary evidence and that there was no
reason to disbelieve such evidence.

20. Genealogy priests (Panda) are
maintaining
and
preserving
ancestry
records from years and in some cases, their
records dates back 15 to 20 generations.
These records contain crucial information
about people's place of origin, names,
births, death, reason of death, place of
residence, caste, clan etc. The records are
available at many religious centre such as
Prayagraj, Nashik, Gaya, Pehowa and in
present case at Mathura. Indian Council of
Historical Research (ICHR) has also
recognised ancestry records preserved by
genealogy priests (Panda).

21. Copy of statements of witnesses
are not on record, therefore, Court is
proceedings on basis of discussions made
by three Court in that regard. (i.e. by
Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer
Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation).

22. The evidence based on 'Ancestry
Record' cannot be lightly brushed away as
it carries an element of genuineness of
record and in order to disregard it, there
must be a very strong evidence. The doubts
put on ancestry record by Consolidation
Officer
and
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation were that the papers were
not in serial, name of village was not
mentioned etc. but one aspect has skipped
from
consideration
of
Consolidation
Officer
and
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation, that in the pedigree, names
of all family members were mentioned,
which are undisputed, except entry in
regard to Bhoj Ram, which cannot be an
outcome of fraud and, therefore, this piece
of evidence cannot be disbelieved or
rejected entirely, except when a very strong
and reliable contrary evidence is available.

23. In order to contradict above
referred
evidence,
petitioners
have
examined one Jalim Singh (85 year old)
and one Chitter Singh (75 year old) that
Girwar was not a married person and he
died issueless, however, their evidence was
disbelieved
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation on ground that they had no
knowledge how land was devolved upon
Manbhawan which appears to be a correct
reasoning, since they would have known it
in normal course but they miserably failed
to disclose source i.e. how and in what
manner
land
had
devolved
upon
Manbhawan.

24. At this juncture, it would be
apposite to mention paragraph of Dukh
Haran Tewary (supra) wherein while
referring to the evidence of Genealogy
Priest has observed that :-
"6. xxxxx
xxxxx

The comment of the appellants about
non-examination of any witness from
Nainijor or absence of any enquiry in that
village by the plaintiffs is justified. But
8 All. Amar Singh & Ors. Vs. D.D.C. Agra & Ors.
1051
there are more dependable documentary
evidence in the case which would help a
decision on the point. P. W. 1 is a Panda
from Mathura. He deposed that Ramgati
had gone on pilgrimage to Mathura and
was his Jajman. He signed entries in the
Jajmanika book of the witness where the
names of Ramgati, his father Lila Tewari
and his grandfather Narkhu Tewari were
written. Those entries were marked as Ext.
1 (e) and the signature of Ramgati as Ext.
2. Several other entries in that book were
exhibited to show that other persons from
the same village Bachri visited Mathura
with Ramgati on that occasion and the
names of those persons with the names of
their fathers and grand-fathers were
written in the book. This Jajmanika book
was the subject-matter of a partition suit
between P. W. 1 and others and by the
decree in that suit, the relevant pages of the
book were allotted to the share of P. W. 1.
Learned
Counsel
objected
to
the
admissibility of this book and the entries
made therein. Ramgati is dead.

His statement, written or verbal, is
admissible under Section 32 of the
Evidence Act, when that statement was
made in the ordinary course of business
and in particular when it consisted of an
entry or memorandum made by him in
books kept in the ordinary course of
business or in the discharge of professional
duty or when the statement related to the
existence of any relationship between
persons as to whose relationship Ramgati
had special means of knowledge and when
such statement was made before the
question in dispute was raised. Sub-clauses
(2) and (5) of Section 32 make such
statement admissible and relevant. There is
not the slightest reason why P. W. 1 would
come to depose falsely or the entries in the
Jajmanika book would be fabricated by him
to support the plaintiffs. The appearance of
the book also inspires confidence. There is
no doubt that the entries were made in the
usual course and in the discharge of the
professional or religious duties of P. W. 1
and Ramgati (sic) P. W. 9 deposed that he
went to Mathura with Ramgati and he
proved the entries made in the Jajmanika
book of P. W. 1."

(Emphasis supplied)

25. The outcome of above discussion
is that oral evidence of Genealogy Priest
(Panda) supported by documents of his
Bahi has more weight in comparison of oral
evidence of Jalim Singh and Chitter Singh
and there is no reasonable ground to
disbelieve evidence of Genealogy Priest
(Panda), therefore, Revisional Authority
has legally interfered in findings returned
by Consolidation Officer and Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
within
the
jurisdiction of revision provided under
Section 48 of Act of 1953.

26. Therefore, as there is no illegality
or irregularity in the impugned orders,
therefore, writ petition is dismissed.

27. Before parting with the judgment,
it is necessary to note that this Court has
decided the present writ petition finally
after 43 years. This writ petition was
dismissed for want of prosecution three
times, though restored on each occasion.
Meanwhile due to death of some of the
parties, matter kept pending to bring their
legal heirs on record. On few dates petition
was adjourned on request of counsel for
parties.
In
four
decades,
generation
changes, but Court has failed to decide this
writ
petition
expeditiously.
Role
of
Advocates is also matter of concern, when
they failed to appear or sought adjournment
but Court also cannot shun away from its
responsibility to decide cases expeditiously
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in accordance with law. "Justice delayed is
justice denied", a legal maxim which we all
have to keep always in mind. No reasons
could be assigned to justify the delay
occurred in finally deciding the present writ
petition after more than four decades. Bar
and Bench both have to accept blame for
such a huge delay. Both have to work
together for better administration of justice
so that cases be decided expeditiously, in
accordance with law so that situation such
in hand may remain as an exception only
and not as a routine.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1052
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ-C No. 2637 of 2023

Tehsil Bar Association Ghaziabad
 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P.P.C.L. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vivek Prakash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, Sri Krishna Agarwal

Civil Law - Electricity Act, 2003 - Tariff
Classification - Advocates' Chambers in Tehsil
Premises - Whether liable to be charged at
domestic or commercial rate - Rate Schedule
LMV-1
for
domestic
usage
includes
professional chambers such as those of
lawyers - Circulars dated 28.11.1983 and
08.10.1985 mandate LMV-1 rate for lawyers'
offices - UPPCL charged LMV-2 (commercial)
on basis of Clause 13 of Rate Schedule 202223 (residuary clause) - Held: Legal profession
not a commercial activity - Advocates not
engaged in trade or business - Their work
akin to social service and judicial function -
Charging commercial tariff to advocates'
chambers in court/tehsil premises contrary to
tariff policy, circulars and legal interpretation
-
Direction
issued
to
treat
electricity
connections
in
advocates'
chambers
as
domestic category under LMV-1.

Held: "The legal profession is a solemn
profession and not a commercial activity.
Lawyers, who assist in the administration
of justice, are not engaged in trade or
commerce. Hence, their chambers - even
in tehsil premises - cannot be billed under
commercial tariff schedule LMV-2, but
under domestic category LMV-1, as per
previous
circulars
and
established
principles."

Case Laws relied on:

1. Sakha Ram Narayan Kherdekar Vs City of
Nagpur Corp., AIR 1964 Bom 200

2. Dr. D.M. Surti Vs St. of Guj., AIR 1969 SC 63

3. VS Sasidharan Vs M/s Peter & Karunakar, AIR
1984 SC 1700

4. M.P. Electricity Board Vs Shiv Narayan,
(2005) 7 SCC 283

5. Sudha Vs President, Advocates Association,
Chennai, (2010) 14 SCC 114

6. Arup Sarkar Vs C.E.S.C. Ltd., 2020 STPL 4200
Calcutta

7. Ramanathan Vs St. of Kerala, 1991 (1) KerLT
89

8. B.N. Magon Vs South Delhi Municipal Corp.,
217 (2015) DLT 55

Interpretation of:

1. U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 (Clause
3.3(e), 1.5)

2. Electricity Act, 2003 (Sections 3, 61, 86)

3. Rate Schedule LMV-1 & LMV-2 (FY 2022-23)