# Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1117
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 19903 of 2021
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47346
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law -U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (26 of
1947) - Section 12(C) - Election petition
- Pendency of - early decision or an
expeditious
conclusion
of
election
petitions
is
imperative
for
the
functioning of democracy - However in
the anxiety to conclude the election
proceedings, norms of fair justice and
procedural fairness should not be given
a go by - All parties to the lis should be
duly noticed (Para 7,8)

Petitioner sought direction that his election
petition pending before election tribunal be
decided within a stipulated period of time -
Direction issued to election tribunal to decide
election petition within a period of six months.
(Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1117
C.B.I., , the Apex Court held that the
interlocutory order has to be construed in
contradiction to or in contrast with final
order, it means not a final order, but an
intermediate order. It is made between the
commencement of an action and the entry
of the judgment. Reverting back to the facts
of this case, as would appear from the
record that here, in this case, nothing has
been decided. The order accepting or
refusing the evidence, impugned in the
revision, in my considered view, would not
fall in the ambit of a final order, as the
matter
is
still
subjudice
before
the
Consolidation Officer, if anything turns on
the statements filed on affidavit, the
petitioner is at liberty to challenge the
same before the higher Court by way of
filing appeal/revision."

13. From perusal of the order dated
06.02.2021 (annexure no. 14), it is evident
that by this order, nothing was decided by the
Consolidation
Officer.
Only
the
date
11.02.2021, was fixed for disposal on the
matter of limitation. The order dated
06.02.2021 does not decide any lis nor
touches on any important right or liability of
any of the parties.

14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court
is of the considered view that the order dated
06.02.2021, being interlocutory, the revision
there-against was not maintainable under
Section 48 (1) of the Act, 1953. The order
dated 10.02.2021 impugned in the petition is
without jurisdiction.

15. Consequently, the order dated
10.02.2021 is quashed. The order dated
06.02.2021 passed by the Consolidation
Officer is revived.

16. The Consolidation Officer,
Ayodhya, shall proceed to decide the
matter pending before him, as per law, after
affording opportunity of hearing to all the
parties concerned, including opposite party
no. 3, with due notice to them, if there is no
other legal impediment.

17. Writ petition is allowed with the
aforesaid observations and directions.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1117
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 19903 of 2021

Anil Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law -U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (26 of
1947) - Section 12(C) - Election petition
- Pendency of - early decision or an
expeditious
conclusion
of
election
petitions
is
imperative
for
the
functioning of democracy - However in
the anxiety to conclude the election
proceedings, norms of fair justice and
procedural fairness should not be given
a go by - All parties to the lis should be
duly noticed (Para 7,8)

Petitioner sought direction that his election
petition pending before election tribunal be
decided within a stipulated period of time -
Direction issued to election tribunal to decide
election petition within a period of six months.
(Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

1. Anita Devi & ors. Vs Prescribed Authority,
Panchayat Raj & ors. 2016 (6) ADJ 27

2. Pukhrem Saratchandra Singh Vs Mairembam
Prithviraj (2015) 16 SCC 149

3. Satya Narain Vs Dhuja Ram & ors. (1994) 4
SCC 247

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Heard Shri Manoj Yadav, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. An election petition was instituted
by the petitioner on 02.06.2021 which
came to be registered as Case No. 03345 of
2021,
Computerized
Case
No.
T202115510103345
(Anil
Kumar
Vs.
Kanhaiya Lal and others) which is pending
before the election tribunal/respondent
no.2, Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Sadar, District Mau.

3. The only prayer made by Shri
Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioner that the election petition be
decided within a stipulated period of time.
Reliance is placed on the law laid down in
Anita Devi and others Vs. Prescribed
Authority, Panchayat Raj and others1.

4. Learned Standing Counsel submits
that the election petition can only be
decided after all parties to the lis have been
duly noticed.

5. This Court in Anita Devi (supra)
set its face against an inordinate delay or
unnecessary
prolongation
of
election
petitions. Further in the same judgement
after a survey of various provisions of the
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, including
Section 12C(5) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947, it was held:

"8. In exercise of powers for
nominating the prescribed authority and
regulating the method and procedure for
presentation
and
hearing
of
election
petition State of Uttar Pradesh has framed
"Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Settlement
of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994." The
Rules provide that an application under
Section 12-C Rule-3 has to be filed within
ninety days from the date the result is
declared. Rule-4 provides for the SubDivisional Magistrate being the competent
authority to hear such election disputes.
Rule-4 declare that while deciding such
election
petitions
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate shall summarily follow the
procedure applicable under the Code of
Civil Procedure 1908 for trial of suits. Such
applications can be dismissed, without
giving notice to the opposite parties. It shall
not be necessary to record the evidence in
full
and
he
may
only
maintain
a
memorandum of the evidence produced by
the parties before him.

9. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate
may only allow such evidence be produced
as he may deem relevant for the purpose of
deciding the election petitions. From the
aforesaid rules regulating the procedures
for hearing of the election petitions read
with Section 12 C sub-rule (5) the
intentions of the State Legislature is, that
there must be early disposal of the election
petitions and if required the rules may
provide for summary hearing and disposal
of the said election petition.

10. The election petitions must be
heard in an expeditious manner and there
should not be uncalled for adjournment of
such petitions. This is more necessary
9 All Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1119
because of the fact that the elections are for
a fixed term and every attempt must be
made to settle the disputes pertaining to
such elections within reasonable time and
nobody should be permitted to linger the
proceedings so as to frustrate the election
petition or to create a situation where the
relief to be granted to the election petitioner
may be rendered illusionary.

11. We are of the considered
opinion that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
who is appointed as the Election Tribunal
under the provisions of Section 12 C of the
Panchayat Raj Act must proceed with the
election petitions in a business like manner.
There should not be any uncalled adjournment
on the mere asking of the parties. The time
frame provided for in the matter of filing of the
written statement must be strictly adhered to.
For avoiding adjournment,of the election
petitions on the ground that the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate is busy with other work or has been
assigned other duties, the State Government
must issue directions to ensure that the SubDivisional Magistrate/Election Tribunal fix at
least one particular day in a week on which
they shall necessarily hear the election
petitions. Adjournment of the election petition
on the ground that the election officer is busy
with other work has to be avoided except in
extremely unavoidable circumstances.

12. In our opinion a general
direction must be issued by the State
Government to Sub-Divisional Magistrate
to make all attempts to decide the election
petition filed under Section 12 C preferably
within six months of their institution and
only in exceptional cases the time limit
fixed be extended and that to for reasons to
be recorded."

6. The importance of a timely
decision of election petitions has been
consistently made in judicial authorities of
high standing. The Supreme Court in
Pukhrem
Saratchandra
Singh
v.
Mairembam Prithviraj2 propounded:

"20. A voter casts his vote as a
responsible citizen to choose the masters
for governing the country. That being the
trust of the electorate in an elected
candidate, when he faces an assail to his
election, it should be his sanguine effort to
become free from the assail in the election
petition and work with attainment and not
take shelter seeking adjournments with the
elated hope that he can be triumphant in
the contest by passage of time. This kind of
attitude has to be curbed from all angles
because law does not countenance it."

7. Similarly an early decision or an
expeditious conclusion of election petitions
was found to be imperative for the
functioning of democracy in Satya Narain
Vs. Dhuja Ram and others3.

8. There is also merit in the
submission of learned Standing Counsel
that in the anxiety to conclude the election
proceedings, norms of fair justice and
procedural fairness should not be given a
go by. All parties to the lis should be duly
noticed.

9. The respondent no. 7-newly elected
Gram Pradhan is directed to cooperate in
the said proceeding and will not seek any
unnecessary
adjournment
before
the
election tribunal.

10. In wake of the preceding
discussion, the writ petition is being
disposed of with a direction to the election
tribunal to decide the election petition
within a period of six months stipulated in
Anita Devi (supra).
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The writ petition is disposed of
finally.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1120
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 20493 of 2021

Govind Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Harish Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Deepak Gaur

A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 67 - Illegal Encroachment -
Without
proper
demarcation
of
the
boundaries of the disputed parcel of lands,
finding of illegal encroachment cannot be
returned (Para 8)

B. U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, S. 67, 67A -
Illegal Encroachment - When defence of S.
67(A)
is
taken
by
the
notice
in
proceedings of S. 67, proceedings u/s
67(A) should be registered separately but
both cases u/s 67 as well under section
67(A) should be consolidated, heard &
decided together as in such matters
pleadings, defence, and evidence of the
parties are same in both the proceedings -
In case proceedings u/s 67 and 67(A) of
the Code are conducted separately and in
isolation to one another, it would lead to
multiplicity of litigation and inconsistent
judgments - Courts in proceedings under
Section
67
of
the
Code
are
under
obligation of law to decide the eligibility of
the noticee for protection under Section
67(A) of the Code. (Para 14, 15)

Defence of Section 67A of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 taken by the petitioner was not
adverted to by both the courts below - failure of
the learned courts below to enquire into the
validity of the defence of the petitioner under
Section 67(A) of the Code has resulted into a
miscarriage of justice - Impugned orders set
side. (Para 18)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Heard Shri Harish Chandra Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondent
and Shri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for
the Gaon Sabha.

2. The impugned order dated
30.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.3Tehsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Class,
Tehsil-Moth, District-Jhansi, rendered in
proceedings
registered
as
Case
No.T201806370201602 (Gaon Sabha Vs.
Govind Singh) under Section 67 of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Revenue
Code,
2006
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), finds
that the petitioner had illegally encroached
over the disputed parcels of land, and
accordingly it was directed that the
petitioner be evicted from the disputed
parcel of land. Damages and other charges
were also imposed upon the petitioner.

3. The learned trial court in the
impugned order dated 30.11.2018 has
noticed that the Lekhpal in his cross
examination had admitted that the disputed
parcels of land were not demarcated and
the house appeared to be of old vintage.

4.

The
learned
appellate
court/Additional
Collector
(Judicial),
Jhansi by the impugned order dated
30.06.2021 agreed with the findings of the