# Parshuram & Anr v. S.D.M., Utraula, Balrampur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 1141
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-02
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 6938 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/parshuram-anr-v-s-d-m-utraula-balrampur-ors-52800
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

12 All. Parshuram & Anr. Vs. S.D.M., Utraula, Balrampur & Ors.
1141

In view of the aforesaid, the petition is
allowed.

A copy of this order be communicated
for
necessary
compliance
to
the
Superintendent,
Government
Children
Home (Girls) Sindhi Kheda Ashray Griha
Paara, Lucknow and the Chairman, Child
Welfare Committee, Shahjahanpur by the
Registrar (Compliance) within one week.
-----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1141
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 6938 of 2025

Parshuram & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
S.D.M., Utraula, Balrampur & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether proceedings under Section 116 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the SubDivisional
Magistrate
can
remain
undecided
beyond the statutory period of six months on the
ground of continuous strike of the Bar Association,
and whether such delay attracts consequences of
contempt in view of the directions issued in Daya
Shankar v. State of U.P.?

Headnotes
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - S. 116 - U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 - R. 109(10) -
Constitution of India - Art. 227 -
Expeditious
disposal
-
Time-bound
proceedings - Continuous strike of Bar -
Contempt - Liability of office bearers of
Bar Association - General directions.

Held:
Rule 109(10) of the Rules, 2016 mandates that
the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make endeavour
to decide a suit under Section 116 of the Code
within six months and if not decided, reasons
must be recorded. [Paras 3, 5]

This Court in Daya Shankar v. State of U.P.,
2023 (6) A.D.J. 181, issued binding directions
that where time is prescribed under the Code or
Rules, the Presiding Officer is duty bound to
conclude proceedings within such period, failing
which he may be liable for contempt, unless
reasonable explanation exists. It was further
directed that litigants need not file writ petitions
for
expeditious
disposal
but
may
invoke
contempt jurisdiction in case of violation. [Paras
5-6]

From the order sheet it appeared that the
proceedings under Section 116 were pending
primarily due to continuous strike by the Bar
Association
of
Tehsil
Utraula.
In
such
circumstances,
prima
facie,
delay
was
attributable to strike and not to the Presiding
Officer. [Para 7]

Held, in view of statutory mandate and binding
directions in Daya Shankar, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur is
directed to decide Case No. 7405 of 2022 within
six months. It is clarified that if adjournments
occur due to continuous strike of the Bar
Association, the office bearers of the concerned
Bar Association shall be liable for contempt for
causing obstruction in compliance of directions
issued in Daya Shankar. [Paras 9-10]

General directions issued for entire State of U.P.
that where proceedings under the Revenue
Code are not concluded within the time fixed by
statute or by this Court due to continuous strike
of Bar Associations at Tehsil, Collectorate or
Commissionerate level, office bearers of such
Bar Associations would be liable for contempt
and parties would be at liberty to initiate
contempt proceedings. [Para 10]

Direction issued to circulate the order through
Chairman, Board of Revenue to all Revenue
Authorities. [Para 12]

Petition disposed of. [Para 11]. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Daya Shankar v. State of U.P. and others,
2023 (6) A.D.J. 181 - Relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Constitution of India; U.P. Revenue Code, 2006;
U.P. Revenue Code Rules

List of Keywords
Revenue proceedings; Time-bound disposal;
Continuous strike; Bar Association; Contempt;
General directions; Expeditious disposal.

Case Arising From
Case No. 7405 of 2022 (Computerized Case No.
T202208100307405), under Section 116 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Parshuram and others
v. Ramdeen and others, pending before SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Utraula, District
Balrampur.

Appearance for Parties
For Petitioners: Shri Vimal Kishor Singh;
Premkant.
For Respondents: Shri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi,
learned Standing Counsel; C.S.C.; Pankaj Gupta.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vimal Kishor Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri
Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed with the following prayer:-

"(i) to direct the opposite party
no.1 to decide Case No. 7405/2022,
Computerized
Case
No.
T202208100307405 under Section 116 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, 'Parshuram
and others Vs. Ramdeen and others',
pending before him since 11.11.2022,
expeditiously within time stipulated by this
Hon'ble Court."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that the suit under Section
116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is
pending since 2022 and till date the same
has not been decided by the concerned Sub
Divisional Magistrate. Though, as per Rule
109 (10) of the Rules, 2016 the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, shall make endeavor
to decide the said suit within a period of six
months, except the reasons to be followed.

4. A request has been made that the
S.D.M., Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur
be directed to decide the Case No. 7405 of
2022, under section 116 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, in time bound
manner.

5. This Court had occasion to consider
the issue of expeditious disposal of cases
under U.P. Revenue Code in the case of
Daya Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others
2023 (6) A.D.J. 181, wherein a direction
was issued that in case a time has been
fixed in the U.P. Revenue Code or Rules
framed therein, then a concerned Presiding
Officer is duty bound to decide the
proceedings within the time prescribed by
the Revenue Code as well as Rules framed
therein. This Court further prescribed the
time
limit
for
deciding
the
other
proceedings under Revenue Code, where
no specific provision has been provided
under U.P. Revenue Code or Rules framed
therein regarding the time, in which the
proceedings
has
to
be
concluded.
Paragraphs no. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and
18 of Daya Shankar's case have been
quoted as under:-

"
12.
For
the
proceeding
mentioned above, the legislature has
provided time bound disposal for some of
the proceedings but despite specific time
fixed by the Code, 2006 proceeding could
not be decided for a number of reasons and
in most of the cases due to negligence on
12 All. Parshuram & Anr. Vs. S.D.M., Utraula, Balrampur & Ors.
1143
the part of presiding officers or due to the
absence of sufficient number of presiding
officers as well as the continuous strike of
bar in Tehsil or Collectorate. The following
provisions of Code, 2006 provide a specific
time for deciding the proceedings as
follows:-

(i) Dispute regarding boundaries
by Sub-Divisional Officer is to be decided
within three months from the date of the
application as per Section 24(3) of Code,
2006 which is quoted as below:-

"24(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."

(ii) Mutation proceedings u/s 35
of Code, 2006 is to be decided within 45
days if mutation is undisputed and within
90 days if mutation is disputed as per Rule
34(7) of Rules, 2016 which is quoted as
below:-

"34(7). The Tahsildar shall make
an endeavour to decide the undisputed case
of mutation within the period of 45 days
from the date of the registration of the case
and the disputed case of mutation within
the period of 90 days and if the proceeding
is not concluded within such period the
reason for the same shall be recorded"

(iii) Proceeding for correction of
record as per Section 38 of Code, 2006 is
to be decided within 45 days from the date
of receiving application with the report as
per Rule 36(6) of Rules, 2016 which is
quoted as below:-

"36(6). An endeavour shall be
made to conclude the proceeding for
correction under section 38 within the
period of 45 days from the date of receiving
the application with the report and if the
proceeding is not concluded within such
period the reasons for the same shall be
recorded."

(iv) Application for cancellation
of irregular allotment of abadi side u/s 66
should be decided within six months as per
Rule 65(10) of Rules, 2016 which is quoted
as below:-

"65(10). The Collector shall make
an endeavour to conclude the inquiry
within the period not exceeding six months
from the date of registration of the case
and if the inquiry is not concluded within
the period aforesaid the reason for the
same shall be recorded."

(v)
Proceeding
to
prevent
wrongful occupation and damage of Gram
Sabha property u/s 67 is to be decided
within the period of 90 days as required by
Rule 67(6) of Rule, 2016 which is quoted as
under:-

"67(6). The Assistant Collector
shall make an endeavour to conclude the
proceeding under section 67 of the Code
within the period of ninety days from the
date of issuance of the show cause notice
and if the proceeding is not concluded
within such period the reasons for the same
shall be recorded."

(vi) Proceeding for granting
permission to transfer the land of schedule
caste
under
Section-98
should
be
completed within period of 15 days as per
Rule 99(11) and which is quoted as under:

"99(11). The Collector shall make
an endeavour to dispose of the application
under section 98(1) within the period of
fifteen days from the date of receiving the
report submitted by the inquiry officer and
if the application is not disposed of within
such period the reason for the same shall
be recorded."

(vii) For division of holding
under Section 116 of the Code, 2006 is to
be decided within a period of six months as
1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provided by Rule 109(10) of Rules, 2016
which is quoted as under:-

"109(10).
The
Sub-Divisional
Officer shall make an endeavour to decide
the suit within the period of six months and
if the suit is not decided within such period,
the reason shall be recorded."

(viii) Proceeding for cancellation
of irregular allotment of agricultural land
u/s 128 should be completed within a
period of three months as per Rules 126(6)
of Rules, 2016 which is quoted as under:-

"126(6). The Collector shall
endeavour to conclude the enquiry within
the period of three months from the date of
issuance of notice and if the enquiry is not
concluded within the period of three
months, the reasons for the delay shall be
recorded."

13.
Apart
from
the
above
proceeding for which specific time frame
was fixed by the legislature in the Code,
2006 or in the Rules, 2016 there are other
proceedings for which no time frame has
been fixed either in Code, 2006 or in Rules,
2016 therefore, the concerned presiding
officer or the revenue officer should make
endeavour to decide these proceedings in
following manner :-

(i) Application for right of way
and other easement u/s 25 should be
decided within a period of one month and if
the same could not be concluded then
reason for the same should be recorded.

(ii) Application for removal of
obstacle from public road, path or common
land of village u/s 26 should endeavour to
be decided within a period of one month
and if the same could not be concluded
then reason for the same should be
recorded;

(iii) Application u/s 58 to decide
the dispute regarding property mentioned
in Sections 54, 56 and 57 should be decided
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of application and if the same
could not be decided then reason for the
same should be recorded;

(iv)
Application
u/s
65
for
delivery of possession of allotted land from
unauthorized person should be decided
preferably within a period of three months
and if the same could not be concluded
then reason for the same should be
recorded;

(v) Application for the execution
of the final decree passed u/s 116 of Code,
2006 by demarcation of Kurra on site
should be decided within a period of one
month and if the same could not be
concluded then reason for the same should
be recorded;

(vi) A suit for declaration as
bhumidhar/asami under Section-144 of the
Code, 2006 should be decided within a
period of the six months and if the same
could not be concluded then the reason for
the same should be recorded;

(vii)
Any
other
application
referable to any provision of Code, 2006
should also be decided within the period
prescribed by Code, 2006 or Rules, 2016, if
no time is prescribed by Code, 2006 or by
Rules, 2016 then same should be decided
within a period of one month and if same is
not decided within aforesaid period then
reason should be recorded.

14. If the proceedings mentioned
above are appealable or revisable or
subject to second appeal as per the
provision of Code, 2006 and if no time is
prescribed by the Code, 2006 then these
proceedings should also be decided within
a period of six months up to the level of
Commissioner and within a period of one
year by the Board of Revenue, and if not
decided within the said period then the
reason for the same should be recorded.

15. While calculating the period
mentioned above as directed by this Court
12 All. Parshuram & Anr. Vs. S.D.M., Utraula, Balrampur & Ors.
1145
for deciding different proceedings under
Code, 2006, the date on which there was a
strike of Bar as well as the dates on which
the person seeking benefit of this order take
adjournment should be excluded.

16. If any stay application, recall
application or any other miscellaneous
application is filed during above mentioned
proceedings, then same should be decided
within a period of one month and if same is
not decided within aforesaid time, then
reason should be recorded. It is made clear
that
during
the
pendency
of
recall
application or stay application, no coercive
action be taken against the applicant.

17. For the violation of direction
mentioned above by any revenue officer
including the Collector and Commissioner
and as well as Board of Revenue, they
would be liable for contempt of this Court
for not following the direction in deciding
the proceedings as mentioned above
(including
pending
proceeding
in
corresponding provision of Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms
Act, 1950 and as Uttar Pradesh Land
Revenue Act, 1901).

18.
The
litigant,
whose
proceeding are mentioned above was not
decided despite his application relying
upon this judgement within the time fixed
by this court, then litigant instead of filing
writ petition for expeditious disposal may
directly approach this Court by filing
contempt
proceedings
against
the
concerned officer."

6. From the above quoted judgement, it
is clear that in case Presiding Officer failed to
conclude the proceedings within the time
prescribed in the U.P. Revenue Code or by
this Court, then he is liable to contempt for
violation of the direction issued in Daya
Shankar's case, if there is no reasonable
explanation to not deciding the proceedings
within time fixed by the Statute as well as by
this Court in the above judgement. This Court
also directed in the above judgment when any
Revenue Authority failed to conclude the
proceedings within the prescribed time
framed then the parties need not to approach
this
Court
for
seeking
direction
for
expeditious disposal of proceedings under the
Revenue Code but they can file contempt
petition before this Court for the violation of
the directions issued in the Daya Shankar's
case (supra).

7. From the perusal of the order sheet int
he present case, it is clear that the
proceedings of a Case No. 7405/2022 under
Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
has been pending for the reason that there is
continuous strike on the part of advocates of
Tehsil Utraula. Though some time the case
was
also
adjourned
because
of
the
nonavailability of the concerned Presiding
Officer. Therefore, it is clear that it is the
strike of Bar Association of Tehsil Utraula,
which is the reason for not concluding the
proceedings in question. Therefore, prima
facie it is the contempt committed by the Bar
Association, Tehsil Utraula, not by the
Presiding Officer, Tehsil Utraula.

8. In view of the above, this Court
considering the fact that there is specific
direction to conclude the proceedings under
Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
within a period of six months and there is
direction of this Court in the case of Daya
Shankar
(supra)
to
conclude
such
proceedings in the time bound manner,
failing which amount to contempt for
disobedience of general direction of this
Court.

9. The present petition is disposed of
with
a
direction
to
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Tehsil
Utraula,
District
1146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Balrampur to decide the Case No. 7405 of
2022 within a period of six months. It is
made clear that if the case is adjourned due
to continuous strike of Bar Association of
Tehsil Utraula then the office bearers of
concerned Bar Association will be liable
for contempt of this Court for making
interruption to the direction in Daya
Shnakar's case.

10. As the issue is effecting the public
at
large,
specifically
poor
litigants
(farmers),
this
Court
issued
general
directions for entire U.P. that in case the
proceedings under Revenue Code could not
be concluded within the time framed by
this Court in the case of Daya Shankar
(supra) because of the continuous strike of
Bar Association of any Tehsil, Collectorate
or Commissionerate, then the office bearers
of Bar Association would be liable for
contempt of this Court for violation of
direction of Daya Shanjkar's case and the
party would be at liberty to file contempt
proceedings against the office bearers of
the concerned Bar Association.

11. With the aforesaid direction, the
present petition is disposed of.

12. The office is directed to send copy
of this order to the Chairman of Board of
Revenue, who will circulate the same to all
Revenue
Authorities
from
Tehsil
to
Commissionerate (Revenue) and the copies
of the same shall also be pasted on the
Notice Board.

13. The Senior Registrar of this Court
is directed to communicate the order for
compliance.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1146
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.12.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3108 of 2025

Shivam Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the appellant, Shivam Sharma, is
entitled to bail under Section 14-A(2) of the
SC/ST Act after rejection of his bail application
by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur.

Consideration of delay in FIR, contradictions in
complainant's
statements,
nature
of
relationship, and absence of criminal history.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - Section
- 180, 183, - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS), 2023 - Section - 64, 125, 352,
351(3), - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Section - 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha),
14-A(2)- Criminal Appeal under section 14-A(2)
of the SC/ST Act - against rejection bail - FIR -
offence under section 64, 352, 351(3), 125 BNS,
2023 and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha)
SC/ST Act - grounds taken - false implication,
five-month delay in FIR, contradictions in
complainant's
statements
(recorded
under
Sections 180 and 183 BNS), and absence of
criminal
history,
conceded
custody
since
19.07.2025 - Court, noting contradictions, delay,
relationship context, age of complainant and
prolonged incarceration - held - set aside the
impugned order and ordered that that appellant
is entitled to be released on bail subject to strict
conditions, clarifying that observations in the
bail order shall not affect the merits of
trial.(Para - 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
No case cited.

LIST OF ACTS