# Rajesh Yadav & Anr v. S.D.M., Teh. Milkipur, Ayodhya & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 211
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-21
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 23934 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-yadav-anr-v-s-d-m-teh-milkipur-ayodhya-anr-46486
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Court Manual - The
Indian Constitution, 1950 - Article 226 & 227 -
The High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat,
exercise its power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution but at the same
time has indicated the scope of interference
particularly in such cases where directions are
required to ensure that law is followed by
tribunals and courts or other authorities.(Para 8)
In the present case it is apparent that there is
statutory mandate that the authorities are required to
decide suit, appeal, revision etc. within statutory
period provided. Non adherence to the aforesaid
principles are clearly violative of the Statute which
would require this Court to step in and ensure that
statutory provisions are adhered to and followed by
the State authorities. Therefore this Court cannot
abdicate its duties and powers in such circumstances
merely on account of availability of alternative and
equally efficacious remedy as provided in paragraph
494 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. (Para 13)

Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

11 All. Rajesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. S.D.M., Teh. Milkipur, Ayodhya & Anr.
211
police report will be filed in shortwhile. The
petitioner has approached at a belated stage by
filing the present petition on 05.10.2021,
therefore, at this stage no such relief can be
granted. Now, the petitioner will have remedy to
make a prayer before the Trial Court for one trial
under Section 220 of the Cr.P.C., if the
petitioner establishes a case for the same.

(23) Considering the aforesaid, we are not
inclined to interfere in the instant writ petition.

(24) The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.

(25) Costs easy.
----------
(2021)11ILR A211
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Misc. Single No. 23934 of 2021

Rajesh Yadav & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
S.D.M., Teh. Milkipur, Ayodhya & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ajay Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Court Manual - The
Indian Constitution, 1950 - Article 226 & 227 -
The High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat,
exercise its power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution but at the same
time has indicated the scope of interference
particularly in such cases where directions are
required to ensure that law is followed by
tribunals and courts or other authorities.(Para 8)
In the present case it is apparent that there is
statutory mandate that the authorities are required to
decide suit, appeal, revision etc. within statutory
period provided. Non adherence to the aforesaid
principles are clearly violative of the Statute which
would require this Court to step in and ensure that
statutory provisions are adhered to and followed by
the State authorities. Therefore this Court cannot
abdicate its duties and powers in such circumstances
merely on account of availability of alternative and
equally efficacious remedy as provided in paragraph
494 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. (Para 13)

Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Vinod kumar Shukla Vs U.P. Ziladhikari Mankapur
Gonda & ors. Writ Petition No. 4064 (M/S) of 2021

2. Moni Singh Vs Nayab Tehsildar, Barausa, Tehsi
Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur

3. Shalini Shyam Shetty & anr. Vs Rajendra Shankar
Patil A.I.R. 2010 SCW 6387

4. L. Chandra kumar Vs U.O.I. (1997) 3 SCC 261

5. Waman Rao Vs U.O.I. (1981) 2 SCC 362

6. Krishena Kumar Vs U.O.I. (1990) 4 SCC 207

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey learned
counsel for petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Kumar
Singh
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party
No.1. In view of order being passed, notices to
opposite party No.2 stand dispensed with.

2. Petition has been filed seeking following
reliefs:-

" a. Direct the opposite party no.1 to
decide the appeal under section 35(2) of U.P.
Revenue
Code,
2006
bearing
Appeal
No.0824/2020, Computerized case No. T202004230400824, Ram Chandar versus Rakesh
Kumar and others, expeditiously, within a
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
period, as fixed by this Hon'ble court, in the
interest of justice. ...."

3. Learned State Counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite party No.1 has raised a
preliminary objection regarding maintainability
of the petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India in view of Chapter L,
paragraph 494(1) of the U.P. Revenue Court
Manual. It is submitted that the aforesaid chapter
is comprised in part V of the U.P. Revenue
Court Manual (Amendment) Regulations 2016
and specifically provides that the Board of
Revenue may suo moto or on the application of
a party to the suit, appeal, revision or other
proceeding pass general or specific order
directing the court below to decide the suit,
appeal, revision or other proceeding within the
period enumerated in the order. It has thus been
submitted that in view of availability of
alternative remedy as indicated herein above, it
would not be appropriate for the petitioner to
directly approach this court in petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has
also been submitted that alternative remedy has
been incorporated by means of U.P. Revenue
Court Manual (Amendment) Regulations 2016
and now provides an effective and efficacious
alternative remedy to the petitioner.

4. Learned State Counsel has also relied
upon the order dated 17th February, 2021 passed
in writ petition No. 4064 (M/S) of 2021 (Vinod
Kumar
Shukla
versus
Up
Ziladhikari
Mankapur Gonda and others) and order dated
6.9.2021 passed in writ petition No. 19692
(M/S) of 2021 (Moni Singh versus Nayab
Tehsildar,
Barausa,
Tehsil
Jaisinghpur,
Sultanpur) to substantiate that in such matters
this Court has relegated petitioner to the
alternative remedy of approaching the Board of
Revenue.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has refuted the submissions
advanced by learned State Counsel pertaining to
the preliminary objection with the submission
that the provision of supervisory control of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is a constitutional provision which can not
be fettered by any statutory provision. It is
submitted that provision under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is in the nature of an
extraordinary power and would not be subject to
any direction or provision of statute. It is
submitted that it is settled law that availability of
alternative and equally efficacious remedy
would not bar a petition either under Article 226
or 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned
counsel for petitioner has relied upon certain
judgments to substantiate his submissions.

6. Considering the submissions advanced
by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent that
part V has been incorporated in the U.P.
Revenue Court Manual with effect from 2016
with Chapter L containing paragraph 494(1)
giving jurisdiction to Board of Revenue to issue
directions for expediting suits, appeals, revisions
and other proceedings pending before revenue
authorities. It is on the basis of Chapter 494(1)
of the aforesaid manual that the order has been
passed in the case of Vinod Kumar Shukla
(supra).

7. With regard to entertainability of a
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India particularly in view of availability of an
alternative and equally efficacious remedy,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Shalini Shyam Shetty and another versus
Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in A.I.R.
2010 SCW 6387 has enunciated the extent and
scope of this Court while exercising powers
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has in the said
judgment clearly indicated the demarcation
between exercise of power under Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been
held that exercise of power under Article 227 of
11 All. Rajesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. S.D.M., Teh. Milkipur, Ayodhya & Anr.
213
the Constitution of India is a discretionary power
to be exercised by court which can not be
claimed as a matter of right by party. At the
same time Hon'ble the Supreme Court has
indicated the principles for exercise of High
Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India which is as follows:-

" 62. On an analysis of the aforesaid
decisions of this Court, the following principles
on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution may be
formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is different from a petition under
Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by
High Court under these two Articles is also
different.

(b) In any event, a petition under
Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The
history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on
High Courts is substantially different from the
history of conferment of the power of
Superintendence on the High Courts under
Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of
a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence
under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere
with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to
it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a
Court of appeal over the orders of Court or
tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an
alternative statutory mode of redressal has been
provided, that would also operate as a restrain
on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

(d) The parameters of interference by
High Courts in exercise of its power of
superintendence have been repeatedly laid down
by this Court. In this regard the High Court
must be guided by the principles laid down by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam
Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam
Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by
subsequent Constitution Benches and various
other decisions of this Court.

(e) According to the ratio in Waryam
Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the
High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of
superintendence can interfere in order only to
keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it,
`within the bounds of their authority'.

(f) In order to ensure that law is
followed by such tribunals and Courts by
exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them
and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction
which is vested in them.

(g) Apart from the situations pointed
in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in
exercise of its power of superintendence when
there has been a patent perversity in the orders
of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or
where there has been a gross and manifest
failure of justice or the basic principles of
natural justice have been flouted.

(h) In exercise of its power of
superintendence High Court cannot interfere to
correct mere errors of law or fact or just
because another view than the one taken by the
tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a
possible view. In other words the jurisdiction
has to be very sparingly exercised.

(i)
High
Court's
power
of
superintendence under Article 227 cannot be
curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a
part of the basic structure of the Constitution by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case
of L. Chndra Kumar vs. Union of India &
others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and
therefore abridgement by a Constitutional
amendment is also very doubtful.

(j) It may be true that a statutory
amendment of a rather cognate provision, like
Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the
Civil Procedure Code (Amendment Act), 1999
does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High
Court's power under Article 227. At the same
time, it must be remembered that such statutory
amendment does not correspondingly expand the
High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence
under Article 227.
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(k) The power is discretionary and has
to be exercised on equitable principle. In an
appropriate case, the power can be exercised
suo motu.

(l) On a proper appreciation of the
wide and unfettered power of the High Court
under Article 227, it transpires that the main
object of this Article is to keep strict
administrative and judicial control by the High
Court on the administration of justice within its
territory.

(m) The object of superintendence,
both administrative and judicial, is to maintain
efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the
entire machinery of justice in such a way as it
does not bring it into any disrepute. The power
of interference under this Article is to be kept to
the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice
does not come to a halt and the fountain of
justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to
maintain public confidence in the functioning of
the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High
Court.

(n) This reserve and exceptional power
of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just
for grant of relief in individual cases but should
be directed for promotion of public confidence
in the administration of justice in the larger
public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for
protection of individual grievance. Therefore,
the power under Article 227 may be unfettered
but its exercise is subject to high degree of
judicial discipline pointed out above.

(o) An improper and a frequent
exercise of this power will be counter-productive
and will divest this extraordinary power of its
strength and vitality."

8. A perusal of the aforesaid principles
clearly indicates the dichotomy between Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and
while it has been held that the High Courts can
not, on the drop of a hat, exercise its power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution but at the same time has indicated
the scope of interference particularly in such
cases where directions are required to ensure
that law is followed by tribunals and courts and
other
authorities
to
ensure
exercise
of
jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not
declining to exercise the jurisdiction. It has been
further held that High Court's power of
superintendence under Article 227 can not be
curtailed by any statute as it has been declared a
part of the basic structure of Constitution in the
constitutional bench judgment of L. Chandra
Kumar versus Union of India reported in (1997)
3 SCC 261.

9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has also held
that powers exercisable by the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution are wide and
unfettered and require issuance of necessary
directions in order to keep a strict administrative
and judicial control on the administration of
justice within its territory since the very object
of superintendence both administrative and
judicial is to maintain efficiency and smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of
justice in such a way that it does not bring any
disrepute. However a note of caution has also
been added that this reserved and exceptional
power of judicial intervention is not to be
exercised just for grant of relief in individual
cases but is to be directed for promotion of
public confidence in the administration of justice
in larger public interest.

10. Upon applicability of the aforesaid
judgment, it is clear that Rule 34(7) of the U.P.
Revenue Court Rules 2016 specifically provides
that the Tehsildar shall make an endeavour to
decide the undisputed cases of mutation within a
period of 45 days from the date of registration of
the case while disputed cases of mutation are to
be decided within a period of 90 days. A further
stipulation has been made that in case the
proceedings are not concluded within the said
time period, reasons for the same are required to
be recorded.
11 All. Rajesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. S.D.M., Teh. Milkipur, Ayodhya & Anr.
215

11. Similar provisions have been indicated
in Rule 183 of the aforesaid Rules of 2016 with
regard to appellate and revisional court. Rule
183 (4) of the aforesaid Rules of 2016
specifically provides that the appellate or
revisional court shall endeavour to finally decide
the appeal or revision within a period of six
months from the date of filing the appeal or
revision and in case they are not being decided
within the said time period, reasons for same are
required to be recorded.

12. The U.P. Revenue Court Rules have
been framed in exercise of powers under Section
233 of U.P. Revenue Court 2006 read with
Section 21 of General Clauses Act 1904 and as
such have statutory force. A reading of Sections
34(7) and 183(4) of the Rules of 2016 make it
apparent that the limitation period prescribed for
deciding revenue matters are not to be treated
lightly and are not at the discretion of the
authorities concerned. There is in fact a mandate
of the statute to decide the applications, suits,
revisions, apeals within the time frame provided
or to record reasons in case the said time period
is not adhered to. As such it can not be said that
the time frame as required to be followed by the
authorities in terms of the aforesaid provisions
are merely directory.

13. Upon applicability of the judgment
rendered in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty
and another (supra) and the principles
enunciated therein, it is apparent that power
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
required to be exercised by this Court in case the
authorities are not adhering to the statutory
stipulations. In the present case, it is apparent
that there is statutory mandate that the
authorities are required to decide suit, appeal,
revision etc. within the statutory period
provided. Non adherence to the aforesaid
principles are clearly violative of the Statute
which would require this Court to step in and
ensure that statutory provisions are adhered to
and followed by the State authorities. This Court
can not abdicate its duties and powers in such
circumstances merely on account of availability
of alternative and equally efficacious remedy as
provided in paragraph 494(1) of the U.P.
Revenue Court Manual.

14. So far as the judgment cited by learned
State Counsel in the case of Vinod Kumar
Shukla versus Up Ziladhikari Mankapur Gonda
and others and Moni Singh versus Nayab
Tehsildar,
Barausa,
Tehsil
Jaisinghpur,
Sultanpur (supra) are concerned, it can be seen
that the petitioner therein has been relegated to
the alternative remedy merely on the basis of
submission advanced by learned State Counsel
and the aspect of maintainability of petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
viz-a-viz paragraph 494(1) of the Manual has
not been adverted to. As such the said order
would clearly not operate as a precedent.

15. The doctrine of precedent or Stare
Decisis is a settled principle of law that a
judgment, which has held the field for a long
time, should not be unsettled. The doctrine of '
Stare Decisis et non quieta movere' means stand
by decisions and not to disturb what is settled.
The aforesaid English principle has been
followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Waman Rao versus Union of India
reported
in
(1981)
2
SCC
362
and
subsequently in the case of Krishena Kumar
versus Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 207 in the
following manner:-

" 33.Stare decisis et non quieta
movere. To adhere to precedent and not to
unsettle things which are settled. But it applies
to litigated facts and necessarily decided
questions. Apart from Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, the policy of courts is to
stand by precedent and not to disturb settled
point. When court has once laid down a
principle of law as applicable to certain state of
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it
to all future cases where facts are substantially
the same. A deliberate and solemn decision of
court made after argument on question of law
fairly arising in the case, and necessary to its
determination, is an authority, or binding
precedent in the same court, or in other courts of
equal or lower rank in subsequent cases where
the very point is again in controversy unless
there are occasions when departure is rendered
necessary to vindicate plain, obvious principles
of law and remedy continued injustice. It should
be invariably applied and should not ordinarily
be departed from where decision is of long
standing and rights have been acquired under it,
unless considerations of public policy demand it.
But in Nakara [(1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC
(L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165] it was never
required to be decided that all the retirees
formed a class and no further classification was
permissible."

16. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is
apparent that for a decision to operate as Stare
Decisis, a deliberate and Solemn decision
determining a question of law is an authority or
a binding precedent in the same court or in other
courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent
cases where the very point is again in
controversy. Since in the orders cited by learned
State Counsel, the matters have been relegated
to the alternative remedy only on the basis of
statement made by the State Counsel without
adjudicating the question of maintainability of
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the same would in the considered opinion
of this Court not operate as a binding precedent
in the present matter.

17. In such circumstances, it is held that
this Court would be well within its rights and
limitations to exercise power under Article 227
of the Constitution of India to issue directions to
the authorities concerned to adhere to the time
limitation provided under Rule 34 and 183 as
indicated herein above. As such the petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for
the purposes of issuance of directions to the
authorities as made in the prayer is held to be
maintainable.

18.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, particularly the fact
that
Appeal
No.0824/2020
is
pending
consideration before the authority concerned
since 2020, a direction is issued to the opposite
party no.1 i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, TehsilMilkipur, District Ayodhya to decide the appeal
under section 35(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
bearing Appeal No.0824/2020, Computerized
case No. T-202004230400824, Ram Chandar
versus Rakesh Kumar and others expeditiously
keeping adherence to the time limit indicated in
Rule 183 of the Rules of 2016 or to indicate
reason for not adhering to the same.

19. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
----------
(2021)11ILR A216
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Misc. Single No. 24785 of 2021

Sharvan Kumar Kaushal ...Petitioner
Versus
S.D.M., Tehsil Utraula, Balrampur & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Waris Farooqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Civil Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 145 - The order of Civil Court not only