# Court in Divisional Forest Officer v. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 201
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 of 2012
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/court-in-divisional-forest-officer-v-madhusudan-rao-jt-2008-2-sc-253-42097
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India , Article 226/227Direction for speedy Trail and quick
disposal of Appeal-every day court facing
similar grievance-speedy Trails meansreasonable expeditious Trail-court issued
general Mandamus to all Revenue Court
to follow the Time Table-and to decide
the case accordingly.

Held: Para 12 and 13

It may be noted that non disposal of the
cases within a time bound period is
unnecessarily burdening this Court with
writ
petitions
seeking directions
as
above. Such writ petitions, can be
avoided and much time of this Court can
be saved, if the revenue courts adhere to
a particular time schedule for disposal of
all cases.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion
that not only land acquisition cases or
other cases for which time period for
disposal has been prescribed, all cases
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

including
revenue
cases
and
cases
arising under the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act
should also be decided within a time
specified.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1979 S.C. 1360; Bal Krishna Vidur Vs.
State of U.P.; (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1767; AIR
1991 SC 1080; 2011 (112) RD 291: 2011 (8)
ADJ 874

## Text

1 All] Chandra Bali V. Addl. Commissioner and others

201
view we are taking was also taken by this
Court in Divisional Forest Officer vs.
Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253
(vide para 19), and in Madhya Pradesh
Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR
1966 SC 671, siemens Engineering &
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Union of
India, AIR 1976 SC 1785 (vide para 6),
etc. Thus, the impugned order dated
03.11.1980 (Annexure No. 2) as well as
the
appellate
order
by
which
the
petitioner's appeal has been rejected being
contrary to principles of natural justice are
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the
question arises for consideration before
this Court is to the effect that if the order
in questions are set aside, on technical
ground fact stated hereinabove whether
the matter is to be remanded back to the
competent authority to take a fresh
decision or not. In this regard, after
considering
the
peculiar
facts
and
circumstances of the present case and
taking
into
consideration
that
the
petitioner is a 71 years old person and he
has suffered great mental agony during
the intervening period due to impugned
orders which have been passed against
him which are against the principles of
natural justice, so keeping in view the law
as laid down by this Court in the case of
Man Mohan Singh Jaggi Vs. Food
Corporation of India and others (2001)
29 LCD 2265, in the interest of justice I
do not feel appropriate to remand the
matter again to the competent authority
for reconsideration.

19. For the foregoing reasons, the
impugned orders are set aside. However,
keeping in view the principle of no work
no pay, the petitioner is not entitled for
any salary for the intervening period but
this period shall not be treated as break in
service but the same shall be treated as
continuation
of
service
for
other
consequential and post retiral benefits.

20. With the above observations, the
writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6635 of 2012

Chandra Bali

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.M. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India , Article 226/227Direction for speedy Trail and quick
disposal of Appeal-every day court facing
similar grievance-speedy Trails meansreasonable expeditious Trail-court issued
general Mandamus to all Revenue Court
to follow the Time Table-and to decide
the case accordingly.

Held: Para 12 and 13

It may be noted that non disposal of the
cases within a time bound period is
unnecessarily burdening this Court with
writ
petitions
seeking directions
as
above. Such writ petitions, can be
avoided and much time of this Court can
be saved, if the revenue courts adhere to
a particular time schedule for disposal of
all cases.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion
that not only land acquisition cases or
other cases for which time period for
disposal has been prescribed, all cases
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

including
revenue
cases
and
cases
arising under the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act
should also be decided within a time
specified.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1979 S.C. 1360; Bal Krishna Vidur Vs.
State of U.P.; (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1767; AIR
1991 SC 1080; 2011 (112) RD 291: 2011 (8)
ADJ 874

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. Petitioner has invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this court for seeking a
direction
upon
respondent
no.
1
Additional
Commissioner,
Varanasi
Division, Varanasi to decide appeal no. 35
of 2004 ( Chandra Bali and Others Vs.
Raja Ram and Others) filed under Section
331 of the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act within a
stipulated period of time with further
prayer that respondents no. 2 to 4 be
restrained from interfering in his peaceful
possession over gata no. 35 situate at
Mauja-Pura Gambhir, Tehsil-Badlapur,
District Jaunpur till the decision of the
appeal.

3. Respondents no. 2 to 5 instituted
suit no. 184/224 under Section 229-B of
the Act. It was decreed on 26.5.2004. The
said judgment, order and decree has been
challenged by the petitioner in the abovereferred appeal before the Additional
Commissioner
Varanasi
Division,
Varanasi. The appeal was filed on
13.7.2004.

4. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
appeal is pending for the last 8 years and
is not being decided.

5. The Court has experienced that
every day about 5 to 10 writ petitions are
coming on the land revenue side and
under the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act with
similar prayer to get the case/suit, appeal
or revision or applications pending therein
be decided within a time bound period. It
has also been noticed that in almost all
such cases apart from delay being caused
by the contesting private parties, the delay
in disposal appears to be on account of the
fact that either the officer is not posted or
available
or
is
busy
in
some
administrative work; and for the reason
that adjournment prayed for has been
granted casually.

6. It is settled that speedy justice is
part of a Fundamental Right under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore,
all litigation must come to an end at the
earliest.

7. The Apex Court in Hussainara
Khatoon and others vs. State of Bihar
AIR 1979 S.C. 1360 held that any
procedure which does not ensure a
reasonable quick trial cannot be regarded
as fair and just and it would fall foul of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, speedy trial which mean
reasonable expeditious trial is an integral
and essential part of the fundamental right
to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21
of the Constitution of India.

8. A three Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court in Bal Krishna Vidur Vs.
State of U.P. held that delay in framing of
charges is negation of principles of
speedy trial and courts should not be
casual in dealing with such cases and
keep them pending for long periods.
1 All] Chandra Bali V. Addl. Commissioner and others

203

9. A Division Bench of this Court in
Manoj Kumar and others vs. Civil Judge
(Junior Division) Deoria (1997) 3
UPLBEC 1767 and others while dealing
with the delay in disposal of execution
was shocked to note that the execution
was being adjourned for the last 7 years
and thus expressing displeasure directed
for its disposal within two months from
the date of presentation of the order
before the court concerned. The Court
observed that the judiciary exists for the
people and not for lawyers and Judges.

10. In Mangat Ram Tanwar and
another Vs. Union of India AIR 1991 SC
1080 the Supreme Court while dealing
with a similar kind of problem relating to
delay in disposal of the land acquisition
cases directed the State Government to
decide all land references under Section
18 within a time bound period of three
months with the outer limit of six months.

11. In Suresh Pal Vs. Civil Judge,
Hapur 2011 (112) RD 291: 2011 (8) ADJ
874 I have myself held that the delay in
executing the decree amounts to denying
the decree holder the benefit of it which is
antithesis to the concept of justice.

12. It may be noted that non disposal
of the cases within a time bound period is
unnecessarily burdening this Court with
writ petitions seeking directions as above.
Such writ petitions, can be avoided and
much time of this Court can be saved, if
the revenue courts adhere to a particular
time schedule for disposal of all cases.

13. In view of the above, I am of the
opinion that not only land acquisition
cases or other cases for which time period
for disposal has been prescribed, all cases
including revenue cases and cases arising
under the U.P. Z.A. and LR Act should
also be decided within a time specified.

14. Time management for disposal
of cases is necessary to tackle the problem
of arrears and pendency.

15. Accordingly, I issue a general
mandamus that atleast in revenue cases
and cases arising under the U.P. Z.A. and
LR Act, the courts/authorities must follow
a set time table for disposal of cases as
provided herein below:-

1. All suits/original proceedings
under UP Z.A. and LR Act be decided
within a period of one year from their
institution with the outer limit of one year
six months;

2. All appeals arising thereto be
decided within a period of four months
and within the maximum period of six
months from the filing;

3. All revisions be decided within
three months and within the maximum
period of four months from the filing; and

4. All miscellaneous applications, if
pressed, which do not require disposal
along with cases/suit, appeal or revision
be decided within six weeks of their filing
with the outer limit of three months.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, I dispose
of this writ petition with the direction
upon respondent no. 1 to decide the above
appeal in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible as per the time
schedule laid down above.

17. Let a copy of this judgment and
order be sent by the Registry of this Court
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

to the Chief Secretary, Revenue State of
U.P, and the Chairman, Board of Revenue
at Lucknow and Allahabad for circulation
to all revenue courts and authorities for
necessary compliance.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8878 of 2012

Jai Prakash Dubey

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Recognized
Basic
Schools
(Recruitment and conditions of Service
of teachers and other condition Rules,
1975-Rules 9-Dismissal order-passed by
social welfare Officer-on ground the
appointment as Assistant Teacher in
primary school itself a forged and
fictitious document-appointment order
and joining before manger without
disclosing the selection list prepared
under Rule 9 itself illegal in absence of
approval by Basic Education OfficerPetition Dismissed-cost of Rs. 25000with direction to lodge F.I.R. Against
erring
officer
including
petitionerInvestigating Officer to submit progress
report before the Court.

Held: Para 11 and 12

This Court as long back as in Hari Lal
and others Vs. Director, Samaj Kalyan,
U.P. and others, 2002(2) UPLBEC 1407
has held that when appointment of a
teacher
has
not
been
made
in
accordance with procedure prescribed
in Rule 9 of 1975 Rules, the person
cannot be said to be a legally appointed
teacher in the school and, therefore, has
no right to hold the post or to claim
salary.

The
Director
has
found
that
in
administering petitioner's appointment
to be valid, the officials of Social
Welfare Department have also played
important role but he has stopped
thereat instead of recommending an
appropriate
criminal
proceedings
against
such
persons
who
have
committed such kind of forgery and
fraud.
Case law discussed:
2002(2) UPLBEC 1407

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. )

1. Heard Sri R.N. Yadav, learned
counsel for the petitioner at length and
perused the record.

2. This writ petition is directed
against the order dated 21.10.2011
passed by Director, Social Welfare
Department,
Government
of
U.P.
observing that appointment of petitioner
is founded on forged and fictitious
documents
and,
therefore,
his
appointment is void and illegal.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submitted that by letter of
appointment
dated
11.06.1984
the
Manager of Harijan Primary Pathshala
Bhedkul,
Sultanpur,
District
Mau
(hereinafter referred to as the "School")
appointed petitioner as Assistant Teacher
w.e.f. 11.06.1984 and pursuant thereto
petitioner joined on 12.06.1984. An
inquiry was also conducted whereafter
petitioner's appointment was not found