# Radha Devi v. 204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 203
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-07-16
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radha-devi-v-204-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-state-of-u-p-ors-43442
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

4 All. Masood Ahmad Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
203
In any case, the outer limit shall not exceed one year, provided:
The application is complete,
There is no legal impediment in granting or considering the licence.

CASE LAW CITED:-

None

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the
respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has applied for firearm license vide application
dated 17.10.2012 before the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, respondent no. 2 but the said
application is not being considered.

3. It is noticed that every day several petitions raising similar grievance from practically all the
districts are coming up before the Court which is not a good sign rather is indicative of the fact that
the Licensing Authorities are either unable to devote time to these applications or are deliberately
delaying the same.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice a general direction
is issued that all applications for firearm license should ordinarily be processed by the Licensing
Authorities expeditiously preferably within a period of six months with the outer limit of one year
from the date of receiving the same provided they are in order and there is no legal impediment in
considering the same.

5. Let this order be sent to the Principal Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for
circulation to all the Licensing Authorities/District Magistrates.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ C No.- 39153 Of 2015

Radha Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner
J.K. Srivastava

Counsel for Respondents
C.S.C.

The present writ has been filed to direct the respondent to expedite the disposal of mutation case within time
bound period. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Chandra Bali Vs. Addl. Commissioner and others,
wherein it was held that n 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. State Legislature has enacted U.P. Act
No. 3 of 2011 to provide for the delivery of services to the people of the State within stipulated time limit. Act
No. 3 of 2011 provides complete remedy where such cases are not decided within the stipulated time.
Therefore, it was held that no directions are required to be passed and the petitioner may approach the
competent authority.

List of Cases cited:

Chandra Bali Vs. Addl. Commissioner and others, 2012(4) ADJ 13

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State.

2. The only prayer made is that the respondent No.3 be directed to expedite the disposal of
mutation case No. 27/34/62/442/739 (Smt. Radha Devi Vs. Rajendra Singh), under section 34 of
L.R. Act within time bound period. It has been stated in para 10 of the writ petition, the
proceedings are pending since 2007 and have not been concluded.

3. The petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the Government order dated
16.5.2012, whereby it has been provided that the respondent No.3 may be directed to decision the
mutation proceedings/cases as early as possible within six months.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision
rendered by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in the case of Chandra Bali Vs. Addl.
Commissioner and others, 2012(4) ADJ 13, wherein after considering the various decisions of
Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as of Division Bench of this Court the following general mandamus
was issued quoted as under:-

 'Accordingly, I issue a general mandamus that at least 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;
4 All. Radha Devi Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
205
 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.'

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid judgement a circular dated 17.5.2012 was issued by the
Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Lucknow to all the Commissioners and District Magistrate for
following such instructions. Subsequently, a Government Order dated 16.5.2012 was also issued by
the State Government, wherein it was provided that the mutation case be decided within time a
bound period and that even if there is dispute in the mutation proceedings, the same shall not be
kept pending for more than six months by the Revenue Authority.

प्रेषक, सख्य -478/ एक-14-2012

ज िेि उस्ि नी,

िुख्य समिि,

उत्तर प्रिेश श सन।

सेि िें,

1-सिस्ि िण्डल युक्त,

उत्तर प्रिेश।?

2-सिस्ि मजल मधक री,

उत्तर प्रिेश।

र जस्ि अनुभ ग-14 लखनऊः मिन ाँक 16 िई 2012

मिषयः-र जस्ि प्रश सन को प्रभ िी बन िे हुए और अमधक जनोपयोगी बन ने के सम्बन्ध िें।

िहोिय,

उपयुिक्त मिषय की ओर आपक ध्य न आकृष्ट करिे हुए िुझे यह कहने क मनिेश हुआ है मक जन सि न्य की सिस्य ओां क
मनर करण करने िें र जस्ि प्रश सन श सन से जुड़ी हुई िरन् िेजी से होिे हुए शहरीकरण क्षेत्र के मनि मसयों को भी र जस्ि प्रश सन के सम्पकि िें प्र यः आन
पड़ि है। र जस्ि प्रश सन क मिक स योजन ओां िें भी प्रत्यक्ष/अप्रत्यक्ष योगि न रहि है। ऐसी मस्िमि िें आिश्यक है मक र जस्ि प्रश सन के उन मिन्िुओां
को जो जनसेि ओां की सीधे सम्बमन्धि है, सुदृढ़ मकय ज य। इस सम्बन्ध िें श सन की मनम्न प्र िमिकि ओां की ओर आपक ध्य न केमन्िि मकय ज न
आिश्यक है:-

1. स ि न्य प्रकृमि के र जस्ि प्रकरणों/ि िों क मनस्ि रण-यह प्रिृमत्त िेखी गयी है मक जो प्रकरण/ि ि स ि न्य प्रकृमिक (सिरी नेिर) के है
उन्हें भी िषों िक लमम्बि रख ज ि है, मजसके क रण एक ओर जह ाँ मशक यिों की सांख्य बढ़िी है िहीं िूसरी ओर पक्षों के
िध्य मिि ि होने से क नून व्यिस्ि प्रभ मिि होिी है। अिः इस सम्बन्ध िें मनम्न नुस र क यि ही मकय ज न अपेमक्षि होग -
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1)
मनमिि ि ि मखल-ख ररज के प्रकरणों को मनध िररि सिय सीि के अन्िगि मनस्ि ररि मकय ज न सुमनमिि मकय
ज य। स ि ही मनमिि ि प्रकरणों को अन िश्यक रूप से मिि मिि बन ये रखने की प्रिृमत्त को सि ि मकय ज य।
ि मखल ख ररज क कोई प्रकरण यमि मिि मिि भी है िो मकसी भी िश िें उसे छः ि ह से अमधक लमम्बि नहीं रहन
ि महए।

2.
सिय-सिय पर अमभय न िल कर पक-11 क के स्िर के मनमिि ि उत्तर मधक र के ि िलों को मनस्ि ररि कर य
ज य िि उत्तर मधमक ररयों के न ि खिौनी िें िजि कर उसकी प्रमिमलमप उत्तर मधक रमयों को सिय से उपलब्द्ध कर य
ज न सुमनमश्िि मकय ज य!

3.
िहसील मििस एिां प्रमिमिन जनि से प्र ि होने ि ली मशक यिों िें बड़ी सांख्य िें मशक यिें पैि इश से सम्बांमधि होिी
है! पैि इश के प्रकरण कई िषों िक िहसील िें लमम्बि रहिे हैं। यमि सम्बांमधि र जस्ि कमिियों द्व र प्रभ मिि पक्षों के
उपमस्िमि िें िौके पर पैि इश करके सही मस्िमि से अिगि कर मिय ज ये िो ऐसी अमधक ांश मशक यिों क
मनर करण मकय ज सकि है। िौके पर की गई क यि ही पर सहिमि स्िरूप प्रभ मिि पक्षों से हस्ि क्षर कर ने से
भमिष्य िें इस प्रक र की मशक यिों िें किी ल यी ज सकिी है। मशक यिकि ि को ध र 41 भू-र जस्ि अमधमनयि
के अन्िगि अन िश्यक रूप से ि ि ि यर करने के मलए प्रेररि करने से र जस्ि ि िों िें िृमध होिी है िि प्रकरण भी
लम्बे सिय िक अमनस्ि ररि रहि है। इससे कभी-कभी क नून व्यिस्ि भी प्रभ मिि होिी है।

4.
ध र 41 भू-र जस्ि अमधमनयि के अन्ििगि कोई भी ि ि 03 ि ह से अमधक की अिमध िक लमम्बि न रहे।
5.
ध र -33/39 भू-र जस्ि अमधमनयि के प्रकरण अमधकिि 03 ि ह िें िि 143 उ०प्र० जिीि री मिन श एिां
भूमि व्यिस्ि अमधमनयि के प्रकरण अमधकिि एक ि ह िें प्रिमिकि के आध र पर मनस्ि ररि कर ये ज ए।

2.
िैिीय आपि -

1.
इस अत्यन्ि िहत्िपूणि मिषय पर श सन अत्यन्ि सांिेिनशील है। घटन की गम्भीरि को िेखिे हुए िररष्ठ अमधक री
घटन स्िल क ित्क ल भ्रिण करें िि र हि क यि सुमनमिि मकए ज ए। िैिीय आपि से पीमड़ि व्यमक्त / पररि र को
24 घन्टे के भीिर अनुिन्य र हि अिश्य उपलब्द्ध कर िी ज य।

2.
भूख एिां कुपोषण से कहीं कोई िृत्यु न हो इसक ध्य न रख ज य। कजि के क रण आत्ि हत्य करने सम्बांधी प्रकरणों
की रोकि ि के मलए प्रभ िी सूिन िांत्र मिकमसि मकय ज य।

3.
जो मनि िण / िरम्िि क यि आपि र हि मनमध से स्िीकृि मकये गए हैं उनके गुणित्त के स ि प्र िमिकि पर पूणि
कर य ज य। िैिीय आपि से होने ि ले नुकस न क सिय से आकलन कर मनि िण िरम्िि र हि क यों क प्रस्ि ि
आिश्यकि नुस र ित्क ल श सन को उपलब्द्ध कर य ज य।

4.
आग िी ग्रीष्ि एिां िष ि िांत्र िें सूख एिां ब ढ़ से उत्पन्न सम्भ मिि सिस्यों क आकलन कर उसके प्रबन्ध हेिु योजन
सिय से िैय र कर ली ज य।

3.
जनमहि ग रण्टी योजन -जनमहि ग रण्टी योजन के अन्िगि 17 जनोपयोगी सेि यें अच्छ मिि है। अिः उक्त क
प्रभ िी अनुश्रिण कर मनध िररि सिय सीि के अन्िगि जनि को उसक ल भ प्रि न मकय ज न सुमनमिि मकय ज य। इस हेिु
4 All. Radha Devi Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
207
मजल स्िर पर एक नोडल अमधक री िैन ि कर मिय ज य जो उक्त क यों क सिय न्िगि सिन्िय ि पयिेक्षण क यि सुमनमिि
करे।

4.
र जस्ि ररक डि-कम््यूटरीकृि खिौनी क सिय से अपडेशन सूमनमिि मकय ज य। खसरों को ररक डि रूप िें सिय
से जि कर य ज य। र जस्ि ि नमित्रों की उपलब्द्धि शिप्रमिशि की ज य िि उसकी प्रमिमलमपय ाँ मजले एिां िहसील के ररक डि
रूि िें िि लेखप ल के प स उपलब्द्ध होनी ि महए। मजन जनपिों िें आध र िषि के ररक डि आमि के मडमजटील इजेशन क क यि
िल रह है िह ाँ पर उसक अनुश्रिण करिे हुए सिय न्िगि क यि सम्पन्न कर य ज य।

5.
िकबन्िी प्रमिय -िकबन्िी प्रमिय ओां को सिय से पूणि कर य ज न आिश्यक है। इस हेिु मजल मधक री द्व र
िकबन्िी क यों क मनयमिि अनुश्रिण मकय ज य। सिस्ि अमधक ररयों द्व र ि नक के अनुस र ि िों क मनस्ि रण अिश्य ही
सुमनमिि कर य ज य। मिमभन्न ग्र िों के मिमभन्न स्िरों के िकबन्िी क यों की सिय सीि मनध िररि करिे हुए सिय स रणी कड़ यी
से अनुप लन सुमनमिि कर य ज य। मजन ग्र िों िें िकबन्िी प्रमिय सि ि हो गई है िह ाँ पर ध र 52 के पूिि ही कब्द्ज पररिििन
िौके पर ि स्िमिक रूप से सुमनमिि कर य ज य िि स ििजमनक भूमि पर से अमिििण हट न सुमनमिि मकय ज य।

6.
र जस्ि ि िों क मनस्ि रण-र जस्ि न्य य लयों िें ि िों क सही ि सटीक ि यर सुमनमिि मकय ज य। आिेिन पत्र
अिि ि ि पत्र की प्र मि से ही ि िों क ि यर ि न ज य िि उसी सिय उनको मिमसल बन्ि िें िजि मकय ज य। िुकििों की
सांख्य मछप ने की प्रिृमत्त को सख्िी से रोक ज य। अिि पैरिी िें ि िों को ख ररज करके कृमिक रूप से मनस्ि रण मिख ने की प्रि
को रोक ज य। प्रत्येक र जस्ि न्य य लयों िें क ांज मलस्ट िि केस ड यरी को कम््यूटर इज मकय ज य मजससे पुर ने िुकििों क
मनस्ि रण हो सके।

7.
र जस्ि िसूली-सिस्ि ि ांग ि िसूली प्रि ण पत्रों को ि स्िमिक एिां पूणि रूप से िजि मकय ज य िि मििरण
पत्रों िें भी उसको ठीक िश िय ज य। ि ांग मछप ने िि िसूली प्रि ण पत्र अन िश्यक रूप से मिभ गों को ि पस करने की
प्रिृमत्त को सख्िी से रोक ज न आिश्यक है। यह स्पष्ट मकय ज ि है मक र जस्ि अमधक ररयों क िूलय ांकन िसूली के
प्रमिशि के आध र पर न करके मिगि िषि की धनर मश िें िृमध के आध र पर मकय ज येग । इस हेिु सम्बांमधि मििरण
पत्रों िें आिश्यक सांशोधन कर मलए ज ए। श सकीय मिभ गों से सम्बमन्धि िेय जैसे व्य प र कर स्टैम्प, मिद्युि आबक री,
मसि ई र यलटी पररिहन आमि को प्र िमिकि से िसूल ज य क्योंमक यह सिस्ि धनरमश र ज्य के मित्तीय सांस धनों िें
सीधे िौर पर िृमध करिे हैं। इस हेिु इन मिभ गों के स ि िसूली प्रि ण पत्र ि ि मसक रूप से मिल न भी मनमिि मकय
ज य।

8.
भूमि अमधग्रहण िें प्रमिपूमिि क भुगि न-भूमि अमधग्रहण के िलस्िरूप मकस नों को मिलने ि ली प्रमिपूमिि
की धनर मश क भुगि न ित्क ल सुमनमिि मकय ज य मजससे इस सम्बन्ध िें िुकििेंब जी से बि ज सके िि क नून
व्यिस्ि की मस्िमि उत्पन्न न हो। यि सम्भि िुआिजे की धनर मश क बैंक द्व र स्िल पर / ग्र ि िें ही भुगि न मकय
ज य। मजससे सम्बमन्धि व्यमक्तयों को मजल िुख्य लय के िक्कर न क टने पड़े।

िण्डल युक्त िि मजल मधक री क यह ि मयत्ि होग मक उनके िण्डल-मजले के अन्िगि उक्त मबन्िुओां क प्रभ िी एिां
पररण िपूििक अनुप लन हो। उनसे अपेक्ष है मक िे इस प्रक र की रणनीमि बन एांगे मक जनि को अपने िैध क यों के मलए ब र-ब र िहसील ि
मजल िुख्य लय के िक्कर न क टने पड़े । िुझे पूणि आश है मक आप अपनी पहल शमक्त, सांिेिनशीलि एिां नेिृत्ि क्षिि क पररिय िेिे हुए
र जस्ि प्रश सन को और अमधक जनोपयोगी बन ने िें सिल होंगे।

भििीय
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(ज िेि उस्ि नी)
िुख्य समिि।

सख्य एि मिन ाँक उपरोक्तः-

उपरोक्त की प्रमि मनम्नमलमखि की सूिन िि एिां आिश्यक क यि ही हेिु प्रेमषि-

1.
अध्यक्ष, र जस्ि पररषि, उत्तर प्रिेश लखनउ।

2.
कृमष उत्प िन आयुक्त, उत्तर प्रिेश श सन।

3.
अिस्ि पन एिां औद्योमगक मिक स आयुक्त, उत्तर प्रिेश श सन।

4.
प्रिुख समिि, ि ० िुख्यिांत्री, उत्तर प्रिेश श सन।

5.
समिि एिां आयुक्त, र जस्ि पररषि उत्तर प्रिेश, लखनउ को इस आशय से मक उपरोक्त प्र िमिक ि ओां के
आश य पर सिीक्ष कर न सुमनमिि करे।
आज्ञ से,

(अशोक कुि र)
प्रिुख समिि ।

6. Apart from this the State Legislature has enacted U.P. Janhit Guarantee
Adhiniyam, 2011 (U.P. Act No. 3 of 2011) to provide for the delivery of services to the
people of the State within stipulated time limit and for matter connected therewith and
incidental thereto.

7. Para 1 of the statement of objects and reasons is quoted as under:-

 "1. For the delivery of Public services provided by various departments of the
Uttar Pradesh Government generally no time-limit was fixed and neither the competent
officers for delivery of such services within stipulated time-limit were properly designated
nor their responsibilities were fixed, due to which the people of the State were facing
difficulties. It was, therefore, decided to make a law to provide for the delivery of services
to the people of the State within stipulated time-limit and for matters connected therewith
or incidental thereto."

8. Section 2 and 3 of the aforesaid Act are quoted as under:-

 "2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

 (a) "Designated Officer" means an office notified as such for providing the
service under Section 3;

 (b) "eligible person" means a person who is eligible for notified services;

 (c) "first appeal officer" means an office who is notified as such under Section 3;
4 All. Radha Devi Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
209

 (d) "right to service" means right to obtain the service within the stipulated time
limit under Section 4;
 (e) "service" means any service notified under Section 3;

 (f) "second Appellate Authority" means an officer who is notified as such under
Section 3;

 (g) "stipulated time limit" means maximum time to provide the service by the
designated officer or to decide the appeal by the first appeal officer as notified under
Section 3.'

 3. Notification of services, designated officers, first appeal officers, second
appellate authority and stipulated time limits- The State Government may, from time to
time, notify the services designated officers, first appeal officers, second Appellate
Authority and stipulated time limits therefor."

8(A). A notification dated 15.1.2011 was issued notifying the services, designated
officers, first appeal officers, second appellate authority and stipulated time limits.

9. Uncontested mutation of land is included as one of the services and time period
provided is 45 working days. The designated officer is Tehsildar and in case he does not
decide within the stipulated limit first appeallate officer is Sub Division Magistrate and the
stipulated time of disposing of first appeal is 30 working day. The second appellate
authority is District Magistrate in such matters. Section 4 provides right to obtain service
within stipulated time limits, Section 5 provides for services of stipulated time limit;
Section 6 provides for appeal; Section 7 provides for penalty in case the service is not
provided by the designated officer or the first appeal officer as the case may be within
stipulated time without sufficient and reasonable cause. The second appellate authority
even has power to recommend disciplinary action if he is satisfied that the designated
officer or the first appeal officer has failed to discharge the duties assigned to him under
this Act.

10. As such the aforesaid Act No. 3 of 2011 provides complete remedy where such
cases are not decided within the stipulated time.

11. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid no directions are required to be passed and the
petitioner may approach the competent authority in view of the observations made
hereinabove, who is under obligation to consider any such application if filed by the
petitioner.

12. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed of.
---------
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ C No.- 45515 Of 2015

St. Joseph'S College & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Appellate Authority/ Deputy Labour Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners
Subhash Ghosh, Ashok Khare

Counsel for Respondents
Vivek Ratan Agrawal

The petitioner is an Intermediate College being administered by the second petitioner "Gyandeep Vidya
Society" registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1886. The third respondent was appointed Teacher
vide contract dated 1 July, 1976. She retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31
March, 2003. The petitioner institution is assailing the order dated 20 July, 2015 passed in P.G. Appeal No.
01/2015 and in P.G. (Cross) Appeal No. 02/2015 passed by the first respondent Appellate Authority/Deputy
Labour Commissioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

Counsel for the petitioner argued that two separate appeals were preferred, one by the petitioner being P.G.
Appeal No. 1/2015 and the other being P.G. Appeal No. 2/2015 filed by the third respondent the appeal of the
third respondent has been decided on merits but the contentions raised in the memo of appeal by the
petitioner institution has not been considered nor noticed by the Appellate Authority.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the teachers were brought under the ambit of the Act 1972 by
Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009, as per Section 13A, the teachers were entitled to gratuity with
effect from 3 April, 1997.

The Appellate Authority, whereas, has rejected the deduction by merely stating that, since the Act 1972 was
not applicable upon the teachers, therefore, the sum paid by the institution would not be taken to be sum
paid towards gratuity. The view taken by the Appellate Authority is untenable for the reason that the case of
the institution is that the third respondent was paid gratuity as per the scheme applicable.

Court held that the first respondent Appellate Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner shall decide both the
appeals afresh.

The writ petition is allowed

List of Cases cited

1. Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers Association Versus Administrative Officers and others AIR 2004 SC
1426