# Avadhesh Kumar & Ors v. District Magistrate, Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 752
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-09
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 2841 of 2022
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/avadhesh-kumar-ors-v-district-magistrate-lko-ors-49272
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Civil Law- The Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006- Sections 24 & 25- The Uttar
Pradesh
Revenue
Court
Manual
(Amendment)
Regulations,
2016-
Regulations 475 and 476- Application for
demarcation of boundaries in terms of
Section 24 of the Code of 2006 and had
also deposited the requisite fee - Received
in
the
office
of
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate concerned on 30.04.2022 and
remained unattended and the case was
registered on 06.09.2022 after the present
petition
was
filed-Demarcation
proceedings are summary in nature and
more than four months have lapsed and
the case of the petitioners has yet not
been registered. There is no leverage
provided to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
to defer or to avoid registering of a case
on the date when an application is
received. It is clear that immediately upon
receiving of a petition or an application,
the
office
concerned
is
required
to
scrutinize the same and unless any defect
is pointed out, which cannot be cured at
the said point of time then some time is
given to cure the defect but if the said
application or a petition is found to be in
order then the same has to be registered
on the same very day.

The provisions of Section 24 and Section 25 of
the Code of 2006, as well as the regulations
framed thereunder, mandate that unless any
defect is found in the application the SubDivisional Magistrate is bound to register the
application on the very date of filing and to
ensure the decision of the case within a period
of six months as far as possible.

The Constitution of India- Article 227-
Articles 14 and 21- The State has failed to
provide the access to justice to the
petitioners. The fundamental right of the
petitioners to seek redressal through the
Court of law has been infringed. This
requires
introspection
from
all
stakeholders especially the State who is
the appointing authority of the Officer
manning
the
Revenue
Courts,
who
adjudicate and decide the valuable rights
of the citizens relating to their individual
rights
and
property
while
exercising
judicial
and
quasi-judicial
powers
in
accordance and within the framework of
law- A serious issue arises which involves
dereliction of duty of the person, who are
required to act and perform ministerial
work, judicial and quasi-judicial function.

Where the authorities entrusted with judicial
and quasi-judicial powers fail
to act in
accordance with the mandate of law and
statutory provisions by failing to register the
case of the applicants and deciding the same,
then the said act amounts to denial of access to
justice thereby infringing the Fundamental
Rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 & 21
of the Constitution of India. (Para 21, 27, 30,
36, 38, 40)

Petition disposed of with directions/
guidelines. (E-3)

Case Law /Judgements relied upon:-

Anita Kushwaha Vs Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8 SCC
509

## Text

_Characters 0–39,965 of 44,055. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39965 for what follows._

752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deed. In the absence of any description of the
property leased out to the respondent-defendant
(first set) by the respondent-defendant (second
set) and the property being a joint property of
petitioners-plaintiffs and respondent-defendant
(second set), the possession of the respondentdefendant (first set) on the strength of said lease
deed prima facie cannot be said to be lawful for
the reason that the property being joint property,
it has to be leased out by all co-sharer and the
description of the property has to be given in the
lease deed specifying which portion of the
property has been leased out to respondentsdefendants (first set).

45. In such view of the fact, this Court
finds that the petitioner-plaintiff has been able
to establish a prima facie case in his favour, and
in case, the respondents-defendants (first set)
are allowed to run brick-kiln business and
excavate mud from the suit property during the
pendency of the suit, that will change the nature
of the property and reduce the fertility of the
land as well as it shall cause damage to
agriculture which is done by the petitionersplaintiffs over the suit property.

46. It is also pertinent to mention that
excavation of mud and soil from the suit
property and running of the brick-kiln business
on suit property may also seriously damage the
yield of the crop over the suit property and will
make the land non-agricultural land which
cannot be compensated in terms of money.

47. Thus, in such view of the fact, the
contention
of
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents that no final relief at an interim
stage by way of injunction can be granted based
on the judgement of this Court in the case of
Leela Dhar Gera and Another Vs. Special
Judge (SC/ST) Act/Additional District Judge,
Bareilly and Others passed in Writ Petition
No.166 of 2010 is not sustainable. Accordingly,
in the opinion of the Court, the aforesaid
judgment is not applicable in the present case as
the said judgement has been rendered in a
different factual scenario.

48. The perusal of the judgement of the
appellate court reveals that it has not upset the
finding returned by the trial court while granting
the injunction, and accordingly, for this reason
also, the order of the appellate court is not
sustainable.

49. Thus, for the reasons given above, this
Court finds that the order of the appellate court
is not sustainable in law, and accordingly, it is
set aside. The writ petition is allowed and
respondents-defendants (first set) are restrained
from running the brick-kiln business over the
suit property.

50. Considering the nature of the dispute
in the present case, this Court finds that it would
be appropriate to direct the court below in the
interest
of
justice
to
decide
the
suit
expeditiously without granting any unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties. In case any
adjournment is inevitable, the
authority
concerned may grant the same by imposing a
heavy cost which may not be less than
Rs.1,000/-.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 752
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 2841 of 2022

Avadhesh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
District Magistrate, Lko. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
9 All. Avadhesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Lko. & Ors.
753
Dinesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

Civil Law- The Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006- Sections 24 & 25- The Uttar
Pradesh
Revenue
Court
Manual
(Amendment)
Regulations,
2016-
Regulations 475 and 476- Application for
demarcation of boundaries in terms of
Section 24 of the Code of 2006 and had
also deposited the requisite fee - Received
in
the
office
of
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate concerned on 30.04.2022 and
remained unattended and the case was
registered on 06.09.2022 after the present
petition
was
filed-Demarcation
proceedings are summary in nature and
more than four months have lapsed and
the case of the petitioners has yet not
been registered. There is no leverage
provided to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
to defer or to avoid registering of a case
on the date when an application is
received. It is clear that immediately upon
receiving of a petition or an application,
the
office
concerned
is
required
to
scrutinize the same and unless any defect
is pointed out, which cannot be cured at
the said point of time then some time is
given to cure the defect but if the said
application or a petition is found to be in
order then the same has to be registered
on the same very day.

The provisions of Section 24 and Section 25 of
the Code of 2006, as well as the regulations
framed thereunder, mandate that unless any
defect is found in the application the SubDivisional Magistrate is bound to register the
application on the very date of filing and to
ensure the decision of the case within a period
of six months as far as possible.

The Constitution of India- Article 227-
Articles 14 and 21- The State has failed to
provide the access to justice to the
petitioners. The fundamental right of the
petitioners to seek redressal through the
Court of law has been infringed. This
requires
introspection
from
all
stakeholders especially the State who is
the appointing authority of the Officer
manning
the
Revenue
Courts,
who
adjudicate and decide the valuable rights
of the citizens relating to their individual
rights
and
property
while
exercising
judicial
and
quasi-judicial
powers
in
accordance and within the framework of
law- A serious issue arises which involves
dereliction of duty of the person, who are
required to act and perform ministerial
work, judicial and quasi-judicial function.

Where the authorities entrusted with judicial
and quasi-judicial powers fail
to act in
accordance with the mandate of law and
statutory provisions by failing to register the
case of the applicants and deciding the same,
then the said act amounts to denial of access to
justice thereby infringing the Fundamental
Rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 & 21
of the Constitution of India. (Para 21, 27, 30,
36, 38, 40)

Petition disposed of with directions/
guidelines. (E-3)

Case Law /Judgements relied upon:-

Anita Kushwaha Vs Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8 SCC
509

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. As we are celebrating 75 Years of
our
Independence
which
has
been
celebrated with much fanfare across the
country under the aegis of "75 Years of
Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsov", but at the
same time, this Court is pained to take note
of the instant petition whereby the
petitioners have approached this Court
alleging violation of their fundamental right
to access justice.

2. Rule of law is meaningless unless
there is access to justice for the common
people. Access to justice is one of the
constitutionally recognized human and
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fundamental right. Access to justice means
to reach justice easily by legal proceedings
in appropriate time. Delivery of justice
should be impartial and non-discriminatory.
State to take all necessary steps to provide
fair, transparent, effective, and accountable
service that promotes access to justice for
all.

3. It is in the backdrop of
Constitutional vision that the facts of the
present case requires to be evaluated.

4. The petitioners have invoked the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India
seeking a direction to the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate (Judicial), Mohanlalganj, District
Lucknow to register their case instituted by
them under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code, 2006 (for short, "the Code of
2006") pending since 21.04.2022.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that
they are tenure-holder of land 391 with an
area measuring 1.3338 hectares situate in
Village Dehramau, Pargana and Tehsil
Mohanlalganj,
District
Lucknow.
The
petitioners have further stated that in order to
get their boundaries properly demarcated,
they moved an application in terms of Section
24 of the Code of 2006 and had also
deposited the requisite fee of Rs.1,000/- on
29.04.2022. It is also alleged in the petition
that though after submitting the said
application, it was forwarded to the Tehsildar,
Mohanlalganj, who further is stated to have
forwarded the application to the Revenue
Inspector and Lekhpal, but till date, no
proceedings have commenced.

6. It has also been pointed out that
demarcation proceedings are summary in
nature and more than four months have
lapsed and the case of the petitioners has yet
not been registered.

7. It has specifically been stated in
Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition that the
Revenue Inspector and the Lekhpal are
harassing the petitioners and the application
for demarcation is pending since 21.04.2022,
but till date, no action has been taken. It is
also stated that the petitioners moved another
application
to
the
District
Magistrate,
Lucknow on 23.07.2022 by post as the first
application of the petitioners was not evoking
any response.

8. It is further stated that the petitioners
made a complaint on the public portal but still
no action was taken and being disillusioned
with the system, the petitioners knocked the
doors of this Court bringing it to the notice
regarding the injustice being suffered and the
basic rights of the petitioners to have access
to justice has been deprived.

9. The petitioners have prayed for the
following reliefs, which read as under:-

"i. Direct opposite party No.2 i.e.
Up-Ziladhikari,
Mohanlalganj,
District
Lucknow to decide the Case under Section 24
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before
him since 21.04.2022; Avadhesh Kumar and
others vs. State of U.P. and others,
expeditiously preferably within stipulated
period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

ii. Issue any other order or
direction in the nature and manner which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.

iii. Award the cost of the petition in
favour of the petitioners."

10. This Court on 08.08.2022 had
required the petitioners to indicate the case
9 All. Avadhesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Lko. & Ors.
755
number of the proceedings which was filed
by them.

11. In compliance of the said order,
the petitioners had filed a supplementary
affidavit dated 10.08.2022, wherein in
Paragraphs 3 to 5, it was stated that the
respondents have not even registered the
case of the petitioners. In order to
substantiate the same, the petitioners have
filed the status report, which is available
online, however, it has also stated that the
case of the petitioners has been entered in
the Register at S.No.138 dated 02.05.2022,
but till date, neither any case has been
registered nor any order-sheet has been
drawn. No case number has been allotted
and in this view of the matter, this Court on
31.08.2022 had passed the following order,
which reads as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

In compliance of the order dated
08.08.2022, the petitioner has filed a
supplementary
affidavit
wherein
in
paragraph 3 it is stated that despite having
moved an application under Section 24 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and a sum of
Rs. 1,000/- also having been deposited on
29.04.2022 yet the case has not been
registered nor any action has been taken
thereon. The allegations as well as the
averments made in the affidavit is of a
serious nature.

Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel as well as the learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall seek
specific instructions and inform the Court
as to why the aforesaid case as filed by the
petitioner has yet not been registered.

List this matter again on 06th
September, 2022, as fresh on which date an
affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2
shall be filed indicating why the said case
has not been registered."

12. To the surprise of the Court,
despite a clear order dated 31.08.2022,
learned standing counsel did not file the
affidavit as he was required and had further
sought a week's time. This request for time
was rejected and the matter was directed to
be listed on 09.09.2022 by means of the
order dated 06.09.2022. The order dated
06.09.2022 for clear appraisal of the issue
is being reproduced hereinafter:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

The Court on 31.08.2022 had
passed the following order which reads as
under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

In compliance of the order dated
08.08.2022, the petitioner has filed a
supplementary
affidavit
wherein
in
paragraph 3 it is stated that despite having
moved an application under Section 24 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and a sum of
Rs. 1,000/- also having been deposited on
29.04.2022 yet the case has not been
registered nor any action has been taken
thereon. The allegations as well as the
averments made in the affidavit is of a
serious nature.

Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel as well as the learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall seek
specific instructions and inform the Court
as to why the aforesaid case as filed by the
petitioner has yet not been registered."

List this matter again on 06th
September, 2022, as fresh on which date an
affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shall be filed indicating why the said case
has not been registered.

Today, it has been informed by
the learned Standing Counsel that the
affidavit is not ready and therefore he
sought a week's further time.

The
prayer
of
the
learned
Standing Counsel is rejected.

List
this
matter
on
09th
September, 2022, as fresh on which date
the respondent no. 2 shall appear in person
before this Court."

13. On 09.09.2022, Shri Hanuman
Prasad
Mauriya,
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District
Lucknow appeared before the Court along
with the learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel, Shri Manish Mishra. The SubDivisional Magistrate concerned has filed
his personal affidavit and has also brought
the original records of the case filed by the
petitioners as well as the original register
wherein cases under Section 24 of the Code
of 2006 are entered and recorded.

14. It has been stated by the learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel that
though the case was received in the office
on 30.04.2022 and on the same very day
the
then
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Mohanlalganj had passed an order on the
application itself directing the Tehsildar,
Mohanlalganj to submit a demarcation
report after enquiry. It is also stated that the
Tehsildar Mohanlalganj vide his order
dated 02.05.2022 directed the Revenue
Inspector, Khujauli to submit his report
after demarcation.

15. It has also been stated that the
present Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who has
filed his personal affidavit namely Shri
Hanuman Prasad Mauriya had taken charge
as
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
on
02.07.2022 while the directions were issued
by the erstwhile Sub-Divisional Magistrate
on 02.05.2022. It has also been stated that
the concerned Revenue Inspector had
issued notices to the parties concerned
fixing 01.09.2022 on which date the
demarcation was carried out on the spot
and the Revenue Inspector submitted his
report on 01.09.2022 and the SubDivisional Magistrate, Lucknow registered
the case on 06.09.2022 and a case
No.228877/2022 has been generated fixing
13.09.2022 as the date fixed.

16. It has also been stated by the SubDivisional Magistrate in Paragraph 17 of
his affidavit that the case could not be
decided within three months as provided in
the Act and the Rules since the report of the
Revenue Inspector was awaited, however,
it has been assured that the matter shall be
taken up with expedition and insofar as the
proceedings
prior
to
02.07.2022
is
concerned, it has been stated that since the
new incumbent Shri Mauriya had joined on
02.07.2022, he was not aware of the
proceedings prior thereto. He undertakes
that he shall be vigilant in future in
deciding the judicial proceedings.

17. Despite, the aforesaid facts and
explanation given by the respondent in his
affidavit and a perusal of the register where
the cases are recorded under Section 24 of
the Code of 2006 which has been provided
to the Court for its perusal indicating that
there are 168 pages therein. It would
indicate that the first case was entered in
the said register on 25.01.2022 and the
same goes on in seriatim till S.No.347,
which is dated 05.08.2022.

18. However, what the Court finds at
running page No.10 and 11 of the said
register after the S.No.113, there is no
9 All. Avadhesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Lko. & Ors.
757
mention of any case at S.No.114-115 rather
it jumps to S.No.116. Thus, it would be
seen that the cases have been shown in
seriatim till 113. Thereafter, the serial
number commences at 116 and goes on till
347. It is in the aforesaid seriatim, the case
of the petitioners is shown to have been
incorporated at S.No.138 at the bottom of
the page of the register and the date of
entey therein is 02.05.2022. Thereafter,
there are two blank pages and then again it
starts at Page-23 and Serial starts from 1 in
seriatim under the heading ''Computerized
Application for Demarcation' and this also
goes in seriatim till S.No.200.

19. Similarly, upon perusing the
original case file, it would indicate that the
petitioners had filed the case and submitted
on 30.04.2022 on which date there is an
endorsement
of
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
concerned.
Thereafter,
the
S.No.138 dated 02.05.2022 has been
mentioned. The order-sheet which has been
brought on record is dated 06.09.2022
which states that the case be registered.
Issue
notice
to
the
parties
fixing
13.09.2022.

20. The record also indicates that
notices have been issued under the
signatures of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
concerned on 07.09.2022 on the file.
Available on the record is the report of
Revenue
Inspector
allegedly
dated
01.09.2022
which
indicates
that
in
pursuance
of
the
application
for
demarcation given by the petitioners,
notices were issued on 17.08.2022. It is
also stated that the petitioners themselves
were present at the time of the survey and a
spot memo was also prepared. While
preparing the spot memo, it is indicated
that any person who has any objection to
the demarcation may file or submit his
objection before the Court concerned. The
parties were required to put their signatures
but
they
refused.
Accordingly,
the
signatures of three other persons have been
appended. From a perusal thereof, it would
indicate that there is no indication as to
who are the said witnesses, as their father's
name/parentage or address is not known. It
is also not known whether they belong to
the said village in question.

21. Be that as it may, the facts are
clear and undeniable. The petitioners had
filed an application seeking demarcation,
which was received in the office of the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned on
30.04.2022 and remained unattended and
the case was registered on 06.09.2022 after
the present petition was filed.

22. The demarcation proceedings are
covered under Section 24 of the Code of
2006 and Rule 22 framed thereunder. The
Revenue Court Manual has also been
framed to regulate the procedural aspect
and to ensure the transparency, uniformity
and to bring sanctity to the Institution and
disposal of the cases.

23. Section 24 of the Code of 2006
reads as under:-

"24.
Disputes
regarding
boundaries.-(1) The Sub-Divisional Officer
may, on his own motion or on an
application made in this behalf by a person
interested, decide, by summary inquiry, any
dispute regarding boundaries on the basis
of existing survey maps or, where they have
been revised in accordance with the
provisions
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, on
the basis of such maps, but if this is not
possible, the boundaries shall be fixed on

the basis of actual possession.
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) If in the course of an inquiry
into a dispute under sub-section (1), the
Sub-Divisional Officer is unable to satisfy
himself as to which party is in possession
or if it is shown that possession has been
obtained by wrongful dispossession of the
lawful occupant, the Sub-Divisional Officer
shall-

(a) in the first case, ascertain by
summary inquiry who is the person best
entitled to the property, and shall put such
person in possession;

(b) in the second case, put the
person so dispossessed in possession, and
for that purpose use or cause to be used
such force as may be necessary and shall
then fix the boundary accordingly.

(3) Every proceeding under this
section shall, as far as possible, be
concluded by the Sub-Divisional Officer
within three months from the date of the
application.

(4) Any person aggrieved by the
order of the Sub-Divisional Officer may
prefer an appeal before the Commissioner
within thirty days of the date of such order.
The order of the Commissioner shall be
final."

24. The relevant Rule 22 farmed
under the Code of 2006 which is related to
demarcation reads as under:-

"22. Recovery of the cost for
removal of obstacle (Section 25 and
26).(1) Every application for settlement of
boundary dispute under section 24(1) of the
Code shall be made to the Sub-DivisionalOfficer and it shall contain the following
particulars:

(a) The names, parentage and
addresses of the parties;

(b)
Plot
number, area
and
boundaries of the land, along with its
location;

(c) Precise nature of the dispute.

(2)
No
application
for
demarcation of boundaries under section
24(1) of the Code shall be entertained
unless it is accompanied by certified
extracts from the maps, Khasras and
Record of Rights (Khatauni) on the basis of
which demarcation is sought, and the
required amount calculated at the rate of
Rs. 1000/- per survey number of the
applicant as fee for demarcation has been
paid by the applicant.

(3) If the application is for
demarcation of two or more than two
adjoining
plots,
only
one
set
of
demarcation fee shall be payable but where
the
survey
numbers
sought
to
be
demarcated are not adjoining, separate
sets of demarcation fee shall be paid.

(4)
On
the
receipt
of
the
application the concerned official shall
check the application as to whether the
requirements have been fulfilled or not. If
there is any defect of formal nature, the
applicant or his counsel shall be permitted
to remove the defect at once but where the
requirements of the application have not
been fulfilled, the applicant shall be
afforded opportunity as sought for to fulfil
the requirements.

(5) As soon as the requirements
are fulfilled the official concerned shall
register the application in the register
concerned and put up the same before the
Sub-Divisional-Officer
for
appropriate
order.

(6) The Sub-Divisional-Officer
shall pass order on the same day or on the
next working day, directing the Revenue
Inspector or other revenue officer to
demarcate the plot or plots as the case may
be after fixing a date and serving the notice
in respect thereof to all the tenure holders
concerned.
This
exercise
shall
be
completed within a period of one month
9 All. Avadhesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Lko. & Ors.
759
from the date of order passed by SubDivisional-Officer.

(7) The notice under sub-rule (6)
of this rule shall be served on the
concerned tenure holder or in his absence
on his adult family member. The notice
shall also be served on the Chairman of the
Land Management Committee.

(8) At the time of demarcation of
the plot the spot memo shall be prepared by
the Revenue Inspector or other revenue
officer and the same shall be signed by all
the parties concerned and by the Chairman
of the Land Management Committee or any
two independent witnesses present at the
time of the demarcation. If any party
refuses to sign the spot memo, the
endorsement to the effect shall be made by
the Revenue Inspector.

(9) The Revenue Inspector or other
revenue officer shall submit his report of
demarcation with spot memo within a period
of fifteen days from the date of demarcation.
The name and address of the every affected
party shall be disclosed in the report.

(10) On receipt of the report under
sub-rule (9), the notices shall be issued within
one week to all the affected parties inviting
the objections on the report and the date shall
be fixed which shall not be later than 15 days
from the date of issuing the notice.

(11) On the date fixed or on any
other date to which the hearing is adjourned,
the Sub Divisional Officer shall decide the
dispute
regarding
the
boundaries
in
accordance with the provisions of the subsection (2) of the section 24 of the Code and
pass the appropriate order after considering
the report and the objections, if any, filed
against the report and affording opportunity
of hearing to the parties concerned.

(12) If the report is confirmed by
the Sub Divisional Officer, the boundary
pillars shall be fixed accordingly within a
period of one week and report in respect
thereof shall be submitted which shall be
part of the record.

(13)
Where
boundaries
of
plots/survey numbers are not identifiable or
damaged, due to alluvion or diluvion or
heavy rain or for any other reasons, the
Sub-Divisional
Officer
may,
on
the
application of the Chairman of the Village
Revenue Committee of the village or on the
report of Revenue Inspector or Lekhpal of
the Circle or on the joint application signed
by all the tenure holders concerned, direct,
by general or special order in writing, the
Revenue Inspector or Lekhpal concerned to
demarcate the boundaries on the spot on
the basis of the existing survey map or
where it is not possible, on the basis of the
possession and to redress the grievance, if
any, on the basis of the conciliation in
consultation with the Village Revenue
Committee. The Revenue Inspector or the
Lekhpal shall comply with the such order
within two weeks from the date of the order
and submit the report thereof to the SubDivisional Officer.

(14) If any party is aggrieved by
the demarcation under sub-rule (13) of this
rule,
he
may
move
application
for
demarcation of the boundaries under subsection (1) of section 24 of the Code and
the demarcation under sub-rule (13) will be
subject to demarcation under sub-section
(1) of section 24 of the Code.

(15) The Sub Divisional Officer,
at the time of passing the order for the
demarcation under section 24 of the Code
or under sub-rule (13) of this rule, may
direct the station officer of the police
station concerned to make the police force
available for maintaining the law and
order on the spot at the time of
demarcation.

(16) The Sub-Divisional Officer
shall make an endeavour to conclude the
proceeding within the period specified in
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
section 24(3) and if the proceeding is not
concluded within such period the reason
for the same shall be recorded."

25. The relevant rules regarding
notice as to how it is to be served also reads
as under:-

"216. Service of notice.- Any
notice or other document required or
authorized to be served under this Code
may be served either:-

(a) by delivering it to the person
on whom it is to be served; or

(b) by registered post addressed
to that person at his usual or last known
place of abode; or

(c) in case of an incorporated
company or body, by delivering it or
sending it by registered post addressed to
the secretary or other principal functionary
of the company or body at its principal
office; or

(d) in any other manner laid
down in this Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
for service of summons."

26. The relevant provisions contained
in the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Manual
which relates to institution of the suit and
drawing of the order-sheets, the issuance of
the notice and the duties of the Presiding
Officer and their readers is also mentioned
and the relevant Regulations in respect
thereto are being reproduced hereinafter:-

"29. Particulars to be written on
order-sheet-The order-sheet (paragraph
1202, Revenue Manual) shall contain a
note of every order made in the suit or
case, and shall show, the date of and the
proceedings at every hearing. It shall show,
amongst other matters the names of the
parties present or of their counsel, if they
are represented by counsel, or of their duly
authorized agents and the dates on which
the plaint and written statement were filed,
issues
were
recorded,
or
amended,
witnesses examined and the names of such
witnesses, of the delivery of judgments, of
the signing of the decree, and of any
application for review of judgment or
amendment of the decree. It shall also
contain a note of every proceeding such as
the reading of the deposition of a witness
examined by commission; the reading of a
commission's report and of the fact of any
objection being made thereto and if
witnesses are in attendance when a case is
adjourned, the fact shall be noted.

30. Order sheet to be written by
the presiding officer or by an officer of the
Court to be signed by presiding officerEvery order on the order-sheet shall be
written by the presiding officer or by an
officer
of
the
Court
under
his
superintendence, and shall be signed by the
presiding officer.

[Note An officer should be
appointed in respect of each Court to sign
the order fixing the adjourned date under
Rule 32, in the absence of the presiding
officer due to sudden illness or some other
such cause].

* * * * * * * * * *

32 Order affixing dates or
directing anything to be done by parties
should be signed by parties or their
pleaders-Order fixing dates of adjourned
dates for hearing or directing anything to
be done by the parties of their pleaders
whether recorded in the order-sheet or
elsewhere shall be signed then and there by
the parties or their pleaders.

* * * * * * * * * *
The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court
Manual (Amendment)
Regulations, 2016

472. Procedure applicable to the
summary
proceedings-Procedure
9 All. Avadhesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Lko. & Ors.
761
prescribed in this chapter shall, subject to
the provisions of the Code and the Rules,
apply to the summary proceedings under
the Code and the Rules.

* * * * * * * * * *

475- Presentation and scrutiny
of
application
-(1)
The
official
F
authorised to receive the application shall
endorse on the application the date on
which it is presented and shall sign the
endorsement.

(2) If, on scrutiny, the application
is found to be in order, it shall be duly
registered and given a serial number.

(3) If the application, on scrutiny,
is found to be defective and the defect noticed
is formal in nature, the official may allow the
applicant or his counsel to remove the defect
in his presence, and if the said defect is not
formal in nature, the official may allow the
applicant or his counsel to rectify the defect
at such time as he may deem fit and the
endorsement thereof shall be made a on the
application which shall be signed by the
party or counsel thereof.

(4) If the applicant fails to rectify
the defect within the time allowed under the
preceding sub- para, the official may decline
to register the application and if so, he shall
place the matter before the Presiding Officer
for appropriate orders.

(5) All the registered applications
shall be posted for admission/order before
the appropriate Presiding Officer on the next
working day. The notice of the posting shall
be given by notifying in the Daily Cause List
for the day.

(6) The Board shall, apart from the
Offline system, endeavour to adopt the online
system for the submitting the application
processing and depositing the fee prescribed
therefor."

27. From the above, it would be
clear that there is no leverage provided to
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to defer or
to avoid registering of a case on the date
when an application is received. It is
clear that immediately upon receiving of
a petition or an application, the office
concerned is required to scrutinize the
same and unless any defect is pointed out,
which cannot be cured at the said point of
time then some time is given to cure the
defect but if the said application or a
petition is found to be in order then the
same has to be registered on the same
very day.

28. This being so, the record
indicating that the case was recorded and
entered in the register on 02.05.2022 and
thereafter as per the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and as reflected from the order
on the application, a report has been
called for and notices have been issued to
the parties to participate in the survey and
demarcation proceedings yet there is not
a single order-sheet on record reflecting
the said exercise.

29. The first order-sheet which is
available on record is dated 06.09.2022
which indicates that, the case be registered
and parties be noticed. Apparently, the
manner in which the proceedings have been
taken is de-hors the provisions of law, the
Rules and the Regulations framed and
reproduced hereinabove first.

30. The very fact that demarcation
proceedings are summary in nature and
have to be decided within a period of three
months as far as possible as mentioned in
Section 24 of the Code of 2006 itself and
here this Court is dealing with a case where
the application of the petitioners for
demarcation was not even registered for
four months and they had to knock the
doors of this Court for getting their case
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
registered and it was done only after strict
orders were passed by this Court.

31. Access to justice is often used as a
term for access to the formal institution of
the legal proceedings by those in search of
a remedy either individually in a particular
civil or criminal case or collectively in a
group for a class action or for raising
constitutional or legal challenges.

32. Viewed through the lens of human
right, access to justice is the obligation of
State to construct a legal and institutional
framework which facilitates access to
independent and effective judicial and
adjudicatory mechanisms and ensure a fair
outcome for those seeking redress without
discrimination of any kind.

33. A Constitutional Bench of the Apex
Court in the case of Anita Kushwaha v.
Pushap
Sudan,
(2016) 8 SCC
509
categorically held that access to justice is a
facet of right guaranteed under Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India.

34. Justice is a concept of rightness,
fairness
based
on
ethics,
moral
and
rationality. Laws made by sovereign body
strive for achieving justice for various
sections of the society; courts are established
for eradicating injustice by reprimanding
those who violate the laws and provide
remedy to the aggrieved persons.

35. Justice is important, as it restores a
sense of equal citizenship and humanity,
forces acknowledgment of the suffering, and
prevents recurrence. To work in order to
secure justice to each and every section of the
society is one of the most important goal of a
successful State . In Indian context securing
justice to the citizens has been kept on
supreme priority, since constitution is drafted
by the people which lays down the formation
of state and direct it to do its function keeping
in mind basic principles enshrined in the
constitution.
Preamble
to
the
Indian
constitution also talks about achieving social,
economic and political justice as its goal.

36. Having noticed the aforesaid, with a
heavy heart, the Court notices that the State
has failed to provide the access to justice to
the petitioners. The fundamental right of the
petitioners to seek redressal through the Court
of law has been infringed. This requires
introspection from all stakeholders especially
the State who is the appointing authority of
the Officer manning the Revenue Courts,
who adjudicate and decide the valuable rights
of the citizens relating to their individual
rights and property while exercising judicial
and quasi-judicial powers in accordance and
within the framework of law.

37. Though the case of the petitioners
has now been registered and his prayer has
become redundant, however, the Court
concerned before whom the demarcation
proceedings are now pending shall after
issuing fresh and proper notice to all the
parties concerned shall get the inspection
done once again and thereafter inviting
objection on the same decide the matter
expeditiously in accordance with law, after
affording full opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned. The earlier inspection
which is said to have been carried out in
absence of the parties shall not come in the
way of the parties or the Court and shall be
ignored while deciding the matter.

38. However, the facts which have
been brought to the notice of the Court is
an eye-opener and it cannot be left
unaddressed. From the above, it is clear
that
the
fundamental
rights
of
the
petitioners to seek access to justice has
9 All. Avadhesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Lko. & Ors.
763
been infringed. The respondent No.2 could
not give any explanation as to why the case
of the petitioners filed on 30.04.2022 could
not be registered till 06.09.2022. How the
order for demarcation and inspection could
have been passed without any order being
on the order-sheet. How could the Revenue
Inspector conduct the inspection without
notice being issued to the parties concerned
and without adhering to the Rules relevant
and applicable in respect thereto. How
could the Revenue Inspector act upon any
alleged order when the case itself was not
registered.

39. Another aspect needs to be
investigated is that when the petitioner filed
the writ petition before this Court after
serving a copy of the same in the office of
the Chief Standing Counsel, who accepts
advance notice of all matters filed in the
High Court where State is a party then
despite having knowledge of the same, no
instructions were made available and
despite three dates were fixed in Court on
08.08.2022, 31.08.2022 and 06.09.2022
and after the request of the State Counsel
was rejected on 06.09.2022 only thereafter
the case of the petitioner was registered on
06.09.2022.

40. Apparently, a serious issue arises
which involves dereliction of duty of the
person, who are required to act and perform
ministerial work, judicial and quasi-judicial
function. The respondent No.2 even after
having taken charge on 02.07.2022 did not
address the issue and slept over the matter,
reason being that no order-sheet was drawn
nor any date fixed which is nothing but
depriving a citizen of this right to access
fair and speedy justice.

41. Thus, exercising powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
this Court issue directions to the Principal
Secretary (Revenue), Government of Uttar
Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow as well
as the Chairman, Board of Revenue,
Lucknow to pass the necessary orders
ensuring that the cases which are filed
before the Revenue Courts are promptly
registered. The order-sheets are properly
drawn and signed by the Presiding Officer
of the respective Courts promptly. To
ensure its efficacy and implementation
necessary checks and regular inspections be
made in Tehsils in all districts of the State
periodically and at intervals to oversee that
the compliancies are being made.

42. The Principal Secretary (Revenue)
shall also hold an enquiry into the matter
relating to non-registration of the case of
the
petitioners
which
was
filed
on
30.04.2022 and the first order-sheet, which
came
to
be
written
on
06.09.2022
registering the case in light of the
observations made in Paragraphs 38 to 40
of this judgment and it be completed within
three months.