# Raj Kumar and another v. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Gonda and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 1
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-01-07
- **Bench:** Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-and-another-v-additional-commissioner-administration-gonda-and-ors-42457
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226practice and procedure-order passed in
ceiling appeal dated 20.12.1976 not
compiled with by Revenue Authoritypetition filed-direction issued to District
Magistrate to find out the ulterior
motives of concerned revenue authoritydenying implementation of final orderheld-hazardous for democracy-direction
issued to take appropriate action against
guilty officer-implement the final order
within 15 days-inform the court by
action taken.

Held: Para-6

If a judicial or administrative authority
moves
with
a
slow
motion
while
implementing
its
own
orders
and
ensuring that the orders passed by it are
implemented,
such
authorities
lack
judicial sense, which is of divine nature.
In this case the order of the year 1976,
which has been reiterated vide order
dated 30.09.2009 has yet not been
implemented. When an aggrieved person
has come to this Court, which is not
easily approachable or assessable for
ordinary fellow citizens, it goes on to
show that he must have approached the
concerned authorities, but in vain. The
District Magistrate has to find out as to
what were the ulterior motives of the
revenue authorities concerned, who have
denied implementation of the orders of
the final Court under the Act and
compelled the petitioner to approach this
Court.
Case Law discussed:
1980 AIR 1575; AIR 2006 SC 1975

## Text

1 All] Raj Kumar & another V. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Gonda & Ors.
1
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.01.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI, J.

Celeing No. - 1 of 2013

Raj Kumar and another
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner (Administration)
Gonda and Ors.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.P.Singh Vishen

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226practice and procedure-order passed in
ceiling appeal dated 20.12.1976 not
compiled with by Revenue Authoritypetition filed-direction issued to District
Magistrate to find out the ulterior
motives of concerned revenue authoritydenying implementation of final orderheld-hazardous for democracy-direction
issued to take appropriate action against
guilty officer-implement the final order
within 15 days-inform the court by
action taken.

Held: Para-6

If a judicial or administrative authority
moves
with
a
slow
motion
while
implementing
its
own
orders
and
ensuring that the orders passed by it are
implemented,
such
authorities
lack
judicial sense, which is of divine nature.
In this case the order of the year 1976,
which has been reiterated vide order
dated 30.09.2009 has yet not been
implemented. When an aggrieved person
has come to this Court, which is not
easily approachable or assessable for
ordinary fellow citizens, it goes on to
show that he must have approached the
concerned authorities, but in vain. The
District Magistrate has to find out as to
what were the ulterior motives of the
revenue authorities concerned, who have
denied implementation of the orders of
the final Court under the Act and
compelled the petitioner to approach this
Court.
Case Law discussed:
1980 AIR 1575; AIR 2006 SC 1975

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman
Siddiqi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned standing
counsel and perused the record.

2. By means of this writ petition,
petitioners have sought for a writ in the
nature
of
mandamus,
commanding
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to get
implemented the order dated 20.12.1976,
passed by District Judge, Gonda as well
as order dated 3.9.2009, passed by the
Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan
Mandal, Gonda.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioners were served with the notice
under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act"),
which
was
ultimately
settled
vide
judgment and order dated 20.12.1976
passed in Revenue Appeal no.82 of 1976,
by the then District Judge, Gonda. By the
impugned order the notice under Section
10 (2) of the Act was discharged, but the
order
was
not
implemented.
The
aggrieved petitioners applied to the
Commissioner
(Administration),
Devi
Patan Mandal, Gonda under Section 13(1)
of the Act which was decided vide
judgment and order dated 3.9.2009, by
which the Revenue Authorities of District
Gonda were directed to implement the
2 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
order passed by the then District Judge on
20.12.1976, contained as Annexure no.2.
Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the
part of the opposite parties, the petitioners
have knocked the door of this Court.

4. Learned Standing Counsel is also
surprised 'how the orders of the final
appellate
courts
are
not
being
implemented' by the Revenue Authorities.
As per request made by learned counsels
for the parties the writ petition is disposed
of finally.

5. It is further made clear that
implementation,
execution
and
enforcement of orders passed by judicial
or
administrative
authorities
is
the
essential point, turning point and crossing
point of the entire constitutional system
otherwise, the constitution of India would
be reduced to a holy book, which is
perfect in a moral sense, pure in heart and
associated with the spirit of nationalism
but hollow, unsound, unreal and groove in
existence. The nation cannot survive
unless its aims and objects are being and
held to by the administrative mechanism
which are tools to keep a nation alive.
India is a fine democracy, as ample laws
by which it is being called a "welfare
state". Each and every authority and
public servants are bound to keep their
fingers tight on the nerve of the society so
as to converting the Indian Democracy
into a ridicule, into mockery. It is really
pathetic that administrative authorities
keep their fingers of the right hand on the
political masters and spare fingers only on
the left hand of the society, which is
eroding nationalism, majesty of the State
and dignity of a public servant. A nation
cannot survive by serving few people. For
survival of the nation it is necessary that
instrument of State machinery must be
vigilant and active enough to ensure that
this country remains a welfare State and
flourishes.

6. If a judicial or administrative
authority moves with a slow motion while
implementing its own orders and ensuring
that
the
orders
passed
by
it
are
implemented,
such
authorities
lack
judicial sense, which is of divine nature.
In this case the order of the year 1976,
which has been reiterated vide order dated
30.09.2009 has yet not been implemented.
When an aggrieved person has come to
this
Court,
which
is
not
easily
approachable or assessable for ordinary
fellow citizens, it goes on to show that he
must have approached the concerned
authorities, but in vain. The District
Magistrate has to find out as to what were
the ulterior motives of the revenue
authorities concerned, who have denied
implementation of the orders of the final
Court under the Act and compelled the
petitioner to approach this Court. The
agony faced by the petitioner can well be
gauged by the observations made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Awatar
etc. v. Shiv Autar and others, reported in
1980 AIR 1575, has held as under:-

"After all, our District Courts are
easier of access for litigants, and the High
Courts, especially in large States like
Uttar Pradesh, are 'untouchable' and
'unapproachable' for agrestic populations
and even urban middle classes. Nor is
there ground to distrust the District
Judges. A hierarchy of courts built upon a
heritage of disbelief in inferiors has an
imperial flavour. If we suspect a Munsif
and put a District Judge over him for
everything he does, if we distrust a district
Judge and vest the High Court with
pervasive supervision, if we be skeptical
1 All] Mahaveer Prasad Verma V. Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow and others
3
about the High Courts and watch
meticulously over all their orders, the
System will break down as its morale will
crack up. A psychic communicable
disease of suspicion, skepticism and
servility cannot make for the health of the
judicial system. If the Supreme Court has
a super-Supreme Court above it, it is
doubtful whether many of its verdicts will
survive, judging by the frequency with
which it differs from itself."

7. Recently, in Gurdev Kaur &
others v. Kaki & others, AIR 2006 SC
1975, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given a
note of caution to such orders which are
stigmatic on the justice delivery system in
the mind of the public at large and has
held; "Judges must administer law
according to the provisions of law. It is
the bounden duty of Judges to discern
legislative intention in the process of
adjudication.
Justice
administered
according to individual's whim, desire
inclination and notice of justice would
lead to confusion, disorder and chaos."

8. Accordingly, writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the
opposite parties to implement the order
passed in Revenue Appeal No.82 of 1976
by
District
Judge,
Gonda
dated
20.12.1976 with thirty days from the date
of production of a certified copy of this
order.
Learned
District
Magistrate
concerned is further directed to hold an
enquiry and find out as to why the
petitioners were compelled to knock the
door of this Court and he shall take
effective action against the guilty and
shall report to this Court within thirty
days from the receipt of the copy of this
order. The District Magistrate shall be
officially
answerable
and
personally
responsible
to
this
court
for
implementation of this order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.01.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J.

Service Bench No. - 66 of 2013

Mahaveer Prasad Verma
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anoop Srivastava Ii

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226petition against the order passed by
Central
Administrative
Tribunal
on
ground
after
transfer
of
the
successor/contemnor-new authority not
brought
on
record-contempt
not
maintainable-application to recall the
order rejected on ground of absence of
provisions
for
review-held-Tribunal
committed great error apparent on the
face of record itself-the purpose of
contempt is to punish the contemnor at
the same time ensure the compliance of
the
direction
also-if
contemnor
transferred-can not be discharged but
shall be triable simultaneously with new
successor-held-order passed by Tribunal
quashed-necessary direction issued to
consider
the
contempt
application
according with law.

Held: Para-9

In view of the above, the order dated
10.1.2012,
seems
to
suffer
from
substantial illegality. The observations
made by the Tribunal that contempt