# Smt. Kamlesh Singh v. Board of Revenue of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 1274
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-31
- **Case number:** Matters U/A 227 No. 1602 of 2022
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kamlesh-singh-v-board-of-revenue-of-u-p-ors-48866
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 - Rule 34 (7) -
U.P. Revenue Court Manual Regulations,
2016 - Para-494, Chapter-XV - Expeditious
Disposal of Cases - Mutation case - time
for disposal of mutation case as per Rule
34 (7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016 is 90 days and in case if it is not so
decided then reasons have to be recorded
- Authorities must devote time for judicial
functioning and ensure timely disposal of
the cases - Board of Revenue must have
regular
mechanism
to
monitor
the
functioning and oversee the disposal of
cases - An effort must be made to oversee
and monitor what efforts are made by the
Presiding Officers in deciding the revenue
cases - it requires a consultative and
continuous effort by all the stake holders
including the members of the Bar who
were requested to act more responsibly
(Para 41)

Petitioner approached High
Court seeking
expeditious disposal of her mutation case u/s 34
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the
Nayab Tehsildar - Court directed the Nayab
Tehsildar to consider and decide the pending
mutation case most expeditiously without
granting any unnecessary adjournments to
either of the parties but after affording fully
opportunity of hearing, preferrably within a
period of three months (Para9)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,788 of 84,466. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39788 for what follows._

1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"23. We are of the considered view
that in cases where the Court is called upon to
deal with the evidence of the interested
witnesses, the approach of the Court while
appreciating the evidence of such witnesses
must not be pedantic. The Court must be
cautious in appreciating and accepting the
evidence given by the interested witnesses but
the Court must not be suspicious of such
evidence. The primary endeavour of the Court
must be to look for consistency. The evidence of
a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out
solely because it comes from the mouth of a
person who is closely related to the victim."

28. Thus to sum up from the above
discussion it is clear that prosecution has
proved the motive of the crime i.e. accused
Ajai Prasad had illicit relations with the
accused Reena Srivastava (wife of the
deceased). The prosecution has also proved the
conduct of the wife of the deceased after the
incident. The deceased and the accused Reena
Srivastava went to sleep in their room after
having meals but after mid-night at about 1
O'clock all of sudden, she went to sleep on the
roof where her mother-in-law was sleeping
along with other family members. No
plausible explanation in this regard has been
given from the side of the accused Reena
Srivastava. The incident had occurred inside
the bed-room where husband and wife went to
sleep. It is heavy duty of the wife to explain
how the incident occurred or in what state she
left the room, where her husband was found
murdered. In the morning itself when her
mother-in-law asked her to wake her husband
up, she ignored and she was busy in preparing
the breakfast in the kitchen. These all facts and
circumstances have been corroborated by the
recovery of knife used in the crime and Vest of
the accused Ajai Prasad, which he wore at the
time of committing the murder of the deceased
Vipin at the pointing out of accused Ajai
Prasad. The witnesses examined in defence
D.W.1 and D.W. 2 have tried to prove the fact
that deceased Vipin was killed by Pankaj
Srivastava. All the witnesses of facts, who are
family members of the deceased denied the
fact of any kind of bickering or dispute
between two brothers Pankaj Srivastava and
Vipin Srivastava. Hence, it is clear and well
established that the murder of the deceased
was committed by the convict/appellant Ajai
Prasad in connivance with convict/appellant
Reena Srivastava in furtherance of a common
intention. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly
held the accused persons guilty and sentenced
them accordingly with imprisonment for life
coupled with fine. There appears no ground or
reason for interference in the conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial Court.

29. In the result, these two appeals are
dismissed.

30. The convicts/appellants Smt. Reena
Srivastava & Ajai Prasad @ Ajai Kumar @
Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava are stated to be in
jail, accordingly they shall serve out the
sentence awarded by the trial Court.

31. Office is directed to send a copy of
this order along with lower Court record to the
trial Court concerned for necessary information
and compliance forthwith.
----------
(2022)07ILR A1274
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 1602 of 2022

Smt. Kamlesh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue of U.P. & Ors.
 ...Respondents
7 All. Smt. Kamlesh Singh Vs. Board of Revenue of U.P. & Ors.
1275
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Kumar, Sri Amit Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 - Rule 34 (7) -
U.P. Revenue Court Manual Regulations,
2016 - Para-494, Chapter-XV - Expeditious
Disposal of Cases - Mutation case - time
for disposal of mutation case as per Rule
34 (7) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016 is 90 days and in case if it is not so
decided then reasons have to be recorded
- Authorities must devote time for judicial
functioning and ensure timely disposal of
the cases - Board of Revenue must have
regular
mechanism
to
monitor
the
functioning and oversee the disposal of
cases - An effort must be made to oversee
and monitor what efforts are made by the
Presiding Officers in deciding the revenue
cases - it requires a consultative and
continuous effort by all the stake holders
including the members of the Bar who
were requested to act more responsibly
(Para 41)

Petitioner approached High
Court seeking
expeditious disposal of her mutation case u/s 34
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the
Nayab Tehsildar - Court directed the Nayab
Tehsildar to consider and decide the pending
mutation case most expeditiously without
granting any unnecessary adjournments to
either of the parties but after affording fully
opportunity of hearing, preferrably within a
period of three months (Para9)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Uday Narain Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
reported in 2006 (2) AWC 1399

2. Chandra Bali Vs Additional Commissioner,
Varanasi Division, Varanasi & ors., 2012 (4) ADJ
13

3. Yashpal Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2015)
SCC Online All 6752

4. Ex-Captain Harish Uppal Vs U.O.I. & ors.
(2003) 2 SCC 45

5. Krishna Kant Tamrakar Vs St. of M.P. (2018)
17 SCC 27

6. District Bar Assc., Dehradun Vs Ishwar
Shandilya & ors. AIR (2020) SC 1412

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Sri Hemant Kumar
Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.

1A.
The
petitioner
has
approached this Court praying for the
following relief:-

"(i) direct the Nayab Tehsildar,
Jahangirganj,
Tahsil-Alapur,
District
Ambedkar Nagar (opposite party no. 2) to
decide
the
mutation
Case
No.
T202004040402142 (Smt. Kamlesh Singh
Vs. Smt. Anju Singh and others), under
Section 34 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed
by the petitioner before the opposite party
No. 2, which is pending before him within
stipulated period."

2. This Court by means of order dated
19.05.2022 had passed the following order
which reads as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Notice
on
behalf
of
the
respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted
by the office of Chief Standing Counsel.

The record indicates that the
instant petition has been preferred seeking
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expeditious disposal of mutation case
pending before the respondent No.2.

The record further indicates that
the petitioner had approached this Court
earlier by means of Writ Petition No.17492
(M/S) of 2021 which was dismissed as not
pressed vide order dated 12.08.2021, a copy
of which has been brought on record as
Annexure No.3.

It is further stated by the petitioner
that in furtherance of the liberty granted to
the petitioner, the petitioner has moved an
application before the respondent No.1 for
expeditious disposal, a copy of which has
been brought on record as Annexure No.4.

It is submitted that despite the said
application being moved in the month of
October, 2021, no orders have been passed
on the said application.

Learned standing counsel shall
seek complete and detailed instructions from
the respondent No.1 as to how many such
applications under Para-494, Chapter-XV of
the Revenue Code Manual (Amendment)
Regulation, 2016 have been received by the
Board
of
Revenue
and
how
many
applications have been disposed off and the
time taken for disposing the said applications
and as on the date, how many applications
are pending seeking expedition under the
aforesaid Regulation.

Let the complete instructions be
made available in proper tabulation within
ten days from today.

List
this
matter
again
on
30.05.2022, as fresh."

3. On 30th May, 2022, on the request
of learned Standing Counsel, the matter
was taken up on 31.05.2022 and the learned
Standing Counsel in pursuance of the order
dated 19.05.2022 has provided the details
as sought by the Court in its order dated
19.05.2022. The same is taken on record.

4. The petitioner has approached this
Court seeking expeditious disposal of her
mutation case pending before the Nayab
Tehsildar, Jahangirganj, Tehsil Alapur,
District Ambedkar Nagar.

5. It had been specifically averred in
the
petition
that
the
petitioner
had
approached this Court by filing W.P. No.
17492 (MS) of 2021 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs.
State of U.P. and others) and upon
preliminary objection raised by the Staterespondents, the petitioner was relegated to
avail the alternate remedy of approaching
the Board of Revenue by filing an
application for expedition in terms of para
494 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual
(Amendment) Regulations, 2016.

6. It is also submitted that despite
having moved the said application before
the Board of Revenue in the month of
October, 2021, yet the said application has
not been decided, as a result, neither the
application
for
expedition
has
been
disposed of and in any case, the mutation
case of which expedition is sought still
remains to be decided, though, under the
Rules framed namely U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 2016, the contested mutation cases
are to be decided within a period of three
months.

7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances,
that the Court had called upon the learned
Standing Counsel regrading the details and
from the perusal of the aforesaid details and
stastictics so provided by the learned
Standing Counsel that between January,
7 All. Smt. Kamlesh Singh Vs. Board of Revenue of U.P. & Ors.
1277
2019 till May, 2022, a total number of 298
applications under Para 494 of the Revenue
Court Manual (Amendment) Regulations,
2016 have been filed out of which 210
expedition applications have been decided
and 88 applications are still pending.
However, it is not disputed that the
application for expedition preferred by the
petitioner on 21st October, 2021 has yet not
been decided and is fixed for hearing
before
the
Board
of
Revenue
on
19.07.2022.

8.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances
and
even
though
the
petitioner has moved an application for
expedition before the Board of Revenue
which has not been decided despite a
period of seven months has lapsed and the
time for disposal of mutation case as
provided in Rule 34 (7) of the U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 is 90 days and
in case if it is not so decided then reasons
have to be recorded.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this
Court deems fit that in exercise of the powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the Court dispenses notice on the private
respondent nos. 3 and 4 and directs the
respondent no. 2 i.e. the Nayab Tehsildar,
Jahangirpur,
Tehsil
Alapur
District
Ambedkar Nagar to consider and decide
the
pending
mutation
case
most
expeditiously
without
granting
any
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties
but
after
affording
fully
opportunity of hearing, preferrably within
a period of three months from the date a
certified copy of this order is placed before
the Court concerned. This order shall also
dispose of the expeditious application
before the Boar of Revenue bearing
E.A./2149/2021.

10.

That
the
petitoiner
had
approached this Court only for the limited
prayer as noticed above but there are
certain disturbing facts which is being
noticed by this Court, repeatedly, and thus
it is necessary to take cognizance of the
same. This Court is deluged with petitions
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India seeking expedite orders in respect of
matters pending before the various tiers of
the hierachy of the Revenue Courts.

11. Primarily, in all such petitions, a
prayer for expedition is sought and in
largely all of the petitions the petitioners in
order to substantiate the injustice caused to
them on account of non-disposal of their
cases, they bring on record the extracts of
the order sheets which divulge a serious
malaise affecting the functioning of the
revenue courts.

12. This Court has come across cases
relating to disposal of suits pending before
the revenue Court of first instance wherein
persons are seeking declaration of their
rights
relating
to
the
year
1977.
Illustratively, this issue came to be noticed
by this Court in (Nirmala Devi Vs.
Additional Sub Divisional Officer-1, Sadar
Pratapgarh and others) in W.P. No. 2077 of
2022 wherein the plight of the petitioner
could be well imagined where the suit for
declaration of rights is pending since 1977.
Similarly, in another matter (Smt. Bikhana
Vs. State of U.P., Principal Secretary,
Revenue and 6 others) bearing W.P. No.
1442 of 2022 a suit for declaration of rights
was pending before the Court of first
instance since 1997.

13. It has further been noticed that the
matters relating to consolidation operations
under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act of
1278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1953) are also pending since large many
number of years.

14. Illustratively, the issue came to be
noticed by this Court in (Pradeep Tiwari
Vs.
Consolidation
Officer,
Bikapur,
Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and others)
bearing Petition No. 1340 of 2022 where
the objections under Section 9-A (2) of the
U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 were pending before
the Consolidation Officer, i.e. the Court of
first instance since 1988.

15. Again in (Ajit Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others) bearing petition No. 20470
of 2022, the objections under the U.P.C.H.
Act, 1953 were pending since 1986. In the
case of (Ram Kuber Vs. Consolidation
Officer, Sultanpur writ petition no. 1855 of
2022), the objections under Section 9-A(2)
of the U.P.C.H. Act of 1953 were pending
since 1989 and again in (Sarju Prasad Vs.
Consolidation Officer, Faizabad and others)
bearing W.P. No. 1419 of 2021, the
objections under the U.P.C.H. Act were
pending before the Consolidation Officer
since 1994.

16. The reference to the aforesaid
cases is only to put the point across and it is
not, as if, in few isolated cases such
disturbing trend is emerging. Rather this
court is pained to say that this problem
across the revenue courts is rampant.
Mention to the few cases as aforesaid is
only illustratively and though it is not
confined only to such cases but the
dilemma is much more widespread.

17. The Constitution of India
envisages the concept of social justice
which is a Basic Structure Doctrine of our
constitution. The concept of social justice is
not uni-dimensional rather it is a concept
which can be seen through a prism
encapsulating within itself, political and
social spheres. Right to legal redressal is
also a Basic Structive Doctrine of the
constitution.

18. It is often said that justice delayed
is justice denied but at the same time, it
must be seen that wherever justice is being
dispensed, it must be done within some
reasonable time or else if it is left without
any legal harness of timelines, it may result
in catestrophic consequences which shall
erode the faith and confidence of the
common persons.

19. In our country, large part of the
society is agrarian and rural which
necessarily amongst othes involve the
rights, liabilities and obligations relating to
agricultural/revenue paying land of the
people which is situate in the core of the
countryside and villages. Large part of our
population also resides in such villages and
large number of families are dependent on
agriculture
for
their
livelihood.
The
agricultural land for them is not only a
matter of social security but also their
livelihood and their rights, prosperity
including that of their generations is
dependent thereon.

20. The matters pending before the
Revenue Court emnate primarily from three
Acts (i) Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act,
1901, (ii) The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari and
Land Abolition Reforms Act, 1950 (iii) The
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953.

21. The U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
and the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 came to
be repealed and have now been replaced by
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is these
Acts which govern the rights, liabilities
relating to agricultural land and also
7 All. Smt. Kamlesh Singh Vs. Board of Revenue of U.P. & Ors.
1279
involves the litigation therefrom. The
aforesaid Acts have an hierachy of courts
which is manned by Presiding Officers who
are appointed and controlled by the State
Government. The highest Authority of the
Revenue Court is the Board of Revenue
which
exercises
the
power
of
superintendence over such subordinate
revenue courts and authorities including
powers of revision and also has been
conferred the power of review.

22. This Court finds that the issue
which is raised herein is not new rather it
has a lamenting past. This aspect of the
matter was taken note of by a coordinate
Bench of this Court in Uday Narain Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in
2006 (2) AWC 1399 wherein noticing the
plight of a litigant viz. a viz. his litigation
before the Revenue Courts, the Court in
paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 has held
as under:-

"..11.
In
a
recent
decision
rendered by this Court, it was noticed with
concern that cases have been lingering in
various courts dealing with revenue cases
and
in
consequence,
a
peremptory
direction has been issued with a view to
regulating the working of these courts by
prescribing
fixed
hours
and
days
untramrneled by the pressure of any other
duties on administrative side. The present
case is not dissimilar to the case noticed
above and in the facts and circumstances,
when the case in hand has been suffering
protraction for more than 15 years, I deem
it my sacred duty to do something towards
reonentation in the realm occupied by these
officers on executive side. This court is
fully conscious that these executive officers
are more often required to discharge
executive functions which include functions
of law and order and have to deal with
unpleasant emergent situation and in
discharge of these functions and in doing
so they feel compelled to relegate the
adjudicatory
function
to
secondary
position.
Their
executive
and
administrative functions apart, there is felt
need that these officers should be mandated
to devote few days and hours to these
adjudicatory functions so that the statutory
duties should not suffer at the altar of
executive or administrative exigencies.

12. There is another aspect to be
reckoned with. As noticed above, it is
manifested from a perusal of the ordersheet
that
the
case
suffered.epeated
adjournments on account of strike by the
lawyers. By a catena of decisions rendered
by the Apex court, it has been held that the
lawyers strikes are illegal and that effective
steps should be taken to stop the growing
tendency. It has also been held that
advocates have no right to go on strike and
that the courts are under no obligation to
adjourn matters because of strike by
lawyers, It has further been held that it is
the duty of all courts to go on with matters
on their boards even the absence of lawyers
and further that the courts must not be
privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. (See ,
1993 (3) SSC 256, (1995) 3 SCC 19, 1995
(1) SCC 619, , , and .

13. Upon a cumulative reading of
the mandate of the Apex court embodied in
the aforestated decisions, this Court on
administrative side, issued circular No.
35/IIIb-36/Admin 'G' Dated: Oct: 4,2004
squeezing
from
above
decisions
the
following directions for compliance by the
subordinate courts in the event of strike by
lawyers.

"1. The Subordinate Courts shall
not take cognizance of any resolution
1280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed by the Bar Associations to strike
and to stop; judicial work. The District
Judge concerned shall not entertain or
circulate any such resolutions amongst the
Judicial officers in his Judgeship.

2, The Judicial Officers must
strictly adhere to Court hours. They shall
perform the entire judicial work on the dais
and shall not accept any request to rise, on
to stop judicial work on the request of
lawyers or litigants. In case lawyers do not
attend to work the judicial officers shall
proceed to work in the following manner:-

A. Where the parties are willing
they shall be heard personally and
necessary orders shall be passed in cases
requiring no further evidence.

B. In matters fixed for evidence
parties shall be allowed to file documents
and do examinations/cross examinations of
witnesses, if so desire.

C. In revisions, review, appeals
(Civil and Criminal both), bails and urgent
applications, the orders should be passed
on merits of the case.

D. In criminal trials of the court
of Sessions or Magistrate the witnesses in
attendance should be examined by the
public prosecutor/prosecuting officer as the
case be, giving an option to the accused to
either cross examine the witnesses himself
or bear the expenses for recalling of the
witnesses, for cross examination on the
date (s) next to be fixed.

3. The District judges shall
submit weekly reports to the Court, with
regard to any incident, which may take
place in the judgeship with compliance
report of these directives.

4. In case any lawyer or group of
lawyers or litigants, creates indiscipline in
the Court or try to obstruct court
proceedings, the Judicial Officer concerned
should immediately inform the District
Judge, who shall immediately arrange for
the police force and restore the functioning
of the Court. In case any damage is caused
to the records or the court: property, the
District Judge shall immediately get the
First Information Report of the incident
lodged.

5. The District Judges shall
arrange for adequate police force, to be
kept in reserve in the judgeship, to be
deployed for protection of the judicial
officers and the court property.

6. The District Judge should
inform the names of the persons involved in
disrupting the court proceeding to the High
Court forthwith.

7. The Judicial Officers shall not:
perform
any
judicial work
in
their
chambers.

14. By virtue of Article 141 of the
Constitution of India, all courts in India
are bound to follow :he decision of the
Supreme Court. The courts dealing with
disputes under the U.P. Land Revenue Act,
U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act and U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act: are courts and as such
these courts cannot turn a blind eye and
are bound to abide by the mandate of the
Apex court."

*************--------------
*******------------******

"...16. In view of the above, there
is felt need that functioning of the courts
created under the statutes i.e. under the
7 All. Smt. Kamlesh Singh Vs. Board of Revenue of U.P. & Ors.
1281
U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act, the U.P. Land Revenue
Act and the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act and also other courts created under
various other Acts dealing with the disputes
pertaining to agricultural land, should be
regulated simulating the standard of a
regular court of law so as to appear to be
acting judicially."

23. Again in the year 2012 this Court in
Chandra Bali Vs.Additional Commissioner,
Varanasi Divsion, Varanasi and othes, 2012
(4) ADJ 13 noticing similar difficulties had to
issue a general mandamus prescribing certain
directions and timelines and the relevant
paragraph 12 and 13 of the said opinion reads
as under:-

" 12. 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 prescribe, all cases incuding
revenue cases and cases arising under the
U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act should also be decided
within a time specified.

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

13. Accordingly. 1 issue a general
mandamus that at least in revenue cases and
cases arising under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R.
Act. the Courts/authorities must follow a set
time table for disposal of cases as provided
herein below

(1) All suits/original proceedings
under U. P. Z. A. and L. R. 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 there to 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
maximumperiod 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.

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.

Let a copy of this judgment and
order be sent by the Registry of this Court
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.

24. Despite the aforesaid decisions, it
appears that no headway has been made,
accordingly, once again the issue engaged
the attention of a Division Bench of this
Court in a Public Interest Litigation titled
Yashpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others (2015) SCC Online All 6752
wherein the Court observed as under:-

"This
Court
directed
the
Chairman of the Board of Revenue to look
into the matter and to take an appropriate
administrative decision to obviate the
grievances of the members of the Bar. In
1282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pursuance of the order of this Court dated
4 December 2015, an affidavit has been
filed by the Registrar of the Board of
Revenue. The affidavit states that 6,01,543
revenue cases were pending as on 1
January 2015. 14,63,886 new revenue
cases were instituted between 1 January
2015 and 31 December 2015. Until 31
December 2015, 14,92,833 revenue cases
have been disposed of. In consequence,
5,76,122 revenue cases are still pending for
disposal. These figures indicate to the
Court that there has been progress in the
matter of streamlining the work of revenue
cases and the rates of disposal have
increased. However much still remains to
be achieved since pendency of 5.76 lacs is
itself a substantial figure. As regards, the
proposal for creation of a cadre of officers
exclusively for the resolution of revenue
cases, it has been stated
that the
Department of Revenue sent the proposal
to the Law Department and the Department
of Personnel for their consent. It has been
stated that the departments concerned have
furnished their consent to the proposal.
Moreover, it has been stated that in view of
the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code 2006, once officers are
designated exclusively for judicial work,
there would be no shortage of presiding
officers.

We are of the view that the State
Government must immediately take steps
under the enabling provisions of sub
section (5) of Section 11 and Section 12
and sub section (6) of Section 13. This
would ensure that judicial work is assigned
to officers who would only perform judicial
duties on the revenue side and would be
exempted from administrative functions.
Judicial work requires a frame of mind,
qualification and experience which are
quite different from the discharge of
administrative
duties
and
it
is
but
necessary that the provisions which have
been contained in the newly enforced
provisions of the Code are implemented in
the State expeditiously. As regards the
proposal for the creation of a cadre, it has
been stated that the Finance Department to
whom a proposal was submitted for
consent had raised certain queries which
has been responded to on 22 February
2016 by the Board of Revenue. After the
consent of the Finance Department, the
proposal would be placed before the
Cabinet after obtaining the consent of the
Law Department and the Department of
Personnel. Since the proposal is now
pending before the Government and the
Government has indicated its intention to
finalize the matter expeditiously, we direct
that a final decision thereon should be
taken within a period of six months from
the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

In view of the enabling provisions
which are contained in the provisions of the
Code, and since the State Government has
initiated steps, we expect that a decision be
taken thereon expeditiously within a period
of six months. Insofar as the strike by the
members of the Revenue Bar Association,
Bijnor is concerned, we take on record the
undertaking and assurances which have
been tendered before this Court in terms of
the resolution which has been passed by the
Bar. The members of the Bar are expected
to display a sense of responsibility
particularly having regard to the judgments
of the Supreme Court laying down the need
for restraint in the striking of work by the
members of the legal profession. Nothing
further would survive in the public interest
litigation at this stage."

25. From the perusal of the aforesaid
observations made by the Court in the
7 All. Smt. Kamlesh Singh Vs. Board of Revenue of U.P. & Ors.
1283
decisions noticed above, from time to time,
it can be seen and noticed that spate of
cases seeking expedition of cases pending
in the Revenue Courts has amplified and
the problem has assumed a greater
proportion now than it was then noticed
while rendering the decisions by the Court
at earlier point of time.

26. It will also be relevant to notice
that with the advent of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, the legislature in its wisdom has
provided timelines for the disposal of the
cases which ranges from 45 days to six
months depending on the nature of the
case.

27. The U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016 also gives a list of case, which are to
be tried in a summary manner, as
enumerated in Rule 192 which is referrable
to Section 225-A of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006.

28. The U.P. Revenue Court Manual
Regulations,
2016
contains
relevant
guidelines for the purposes of conduct of
day to day affairs of the cases pending
before the Revenue Courts and Authorities.
These regulations also came to be amended
in the year 2016 wherin Chapter L Rule
494 was duly amended and incorporated
which reads as under:-

Chapter L:- Order or Directions
for Expeditios Disposal of Cases:-

494:- (i) The Board may suo motu
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 with the
period mumersed in the order.

(2) The applican for direction to
decide the suit, appeal, revision or other
proceeding within the period stipulated by
the Board shall be accompanied by
affidavit

(3) Besides the brief facts of the
case, the reasons for the delay in disposal
of the case shall be disclosed in the
affidavit filed in support of the applications
and a copy of the entire order sheet or the
extract thereof shall be annexed to the
affidavit.

(4) The Board shall, while
passing the order directing the court below
to decide the case within the goland period,
keep in mind, the conduct of the party
applying for the direction, the comparative
urgency for the early disposal of the case
and the unther of cases pending in the
court concerned

(5)
Mere
filing
of
transfer
application does not amount to stay of the
proceeding in the Court below unless the
stay order is passed on the transfer
application by the competent Court. The
court below shall endeavour to comply with
the direction passed by the Board for the
expeditious disposal of the case and the
provisions of rule 195 of the Rules, shall,
mutatis mutandis, apply regarding the
compliance of the order under this para.

29. From the perusal of the Revenue
Court Manual, one would find, that it
contains comprehensive guidelines and
regulations for the day to day functioning
of the Revenue Courts which includes
mattes relating to daily siting of officers,
officer hours, the manner in which the
orders have to be passed, preparation of
cause lists, carry forward of cases, early
1284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hearing of cases, speedy disposal amongst
others.

30. In furtherance of the aforesaid, the
Board of Revenue which exercises the
power
of
superintendence
over
the
subordinate revenue courts and authorities
has also been conferred with the power of
expediting
cases
pending
before
the
Revenue Courts and Authorities. An
alarming feature which has come to the
notice of the Court as evident from the
instructions and the stastactics provided by
the learned Standing Counsel indicates that
298 expedite applications were filed before
the Board of Revenue between January,
2019 till 30th April, 2022. Out of 298
applications so filed, 210 applications have
been decided but what is disturbing is that
only 70 such applications were decided
within a period of one month while rest of
the applications so decided took several
months and even years to be decided.

31. From the stastatics so provided,
out of the 88 applications still pending, two
of them relate to the month of September,
2019 while most of them are from the year
2021 and only 14 applications are such
which have been filed in the year 2022 and
still pending while we are here in the end of
May, 2022.

32. Thus, what can be seen is that an
application to seek expedition is taking
huge time ranging over several months
whereas the U.P. Revenue Act, 2006 as
noticed above has provided timelines
ranging from 45 days to 6 months for
disposal of cases in summary manner.

33. From the aforesaid, it is apparent
that an application for expedite is taking
more than 6 months to one year or even
more for decision then, what can be said of
principal litigation of which expedition is
sought is only heart wrenching and painful.
It needs to be realised that where matters
are pending before the Court of first
instance relating to the year 1977, 1980s
and 1990s and the said litigation has further
two tiers of appeal/revision as the case may
be. It leaves very little to imagination, what
would be the plight of such litigants and
how many generations would suffer on
account of such unending litigation.

34. Another aspect which has come to
the fore from the perusal of the extracts of
the ordersheets which are being brought on
record in the various petitions, a reference
of few has been noticed in the preceeding
paragraphs indicates a hugely disturbing
trend of abstention of work by lawyers
resorting
to
most
unreasonable
and
unwarrented strikes and boycotts. This
Court has come across various cases
wherein for months at an end, no judicial
work could be transacted on account of
resolutions passed by the members of the
bar abstaining from judicial work. This is
one major cause of delay.

35. The other major cause for
pendency reflected from the order sheets
appears to be non-availability of the
officers who are assigned judicial work but
as they are primarily busy in other
administrative
and
executive
duties.
Unfortunately, this Court finds that the
Regulations of 2016 is hardly being
followed and the functioning of the
Revenue Court and Authorties is indicative
that the Presiding Officers are completely
oblivious to the said regulations and there
is even no effort of its adherence.

37. The third major cause appears to
be, the grant of endless adjournment at the
asking of any party, least realizing what
7 All. Smt. Kamlesh Singh Vs. Board of Revenue of U.P. & Ors.
1285
effect it has on the rights of the parties
involved in a litigation. All the above three
causative factors have almost brought the
functioning of the revenue courts to
disrepute for which all the stake holders are
responsible.

38. The issue regarding abstention of
works and strikes has already been taken
note of by the Apex Court in the
constitutional Bench case of Ex-Captain
Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and
others (2003) 2 SCC 45 and the relevant
portion thereof reads as under:-

"30.
In
the
light
of
the
abovementioned views expressed by the
Supreme Court, lawyers have no right to
strike i.e. to abstain from appearing in
Court in cases in which they hold vakalat
for the parties, even if it is in response to or
in compliance with a decision of any
association or body of lawyers. In our view,
in exercise of the right to protest, a lawyer
may refuse to accept new engagements and
may even refuse to appear in a case in
which he had already been engaged, if he
has been duly discharged from the case.
But so long as a lawyer holds the vakalat
for his client and has not been duly
discharged, he has no right to abstain from
appearing in Court even on the ground of a
strike called by the Bar Association or any
other body of lawyers. If he so abstains, he
commits a professional misconduct, a
breach of professional duty, a breach of
contract and also a breach of trust and he
will be liable to suffer all the consequences
thereof. There is no fundamental right,
either under Article 19 or under Article 21
of the Constitution, which permits or
authorises a lawyer to abstain from
appearing in Court in a case in which he
holds the vakalat for a party in that case.
On the other hand a litigant has a
fundamental right for speedy trial of his
case, because, speedy trial, as held by the
Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (I)
v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1
SCC 81 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 23 : AIR 1979 SC
1360] is an integral and essential part of
the fundamental right to life and liberty
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
Strike
by
lawyers
will
infringe
the
abovementioned fundamental right of the
litigants and such infringement cannot be
permitted. Assuming that the lawyers are
trying to convey their feelings or sentiments
and ideas through the strike in exercise of
their fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, we are
of the view that the exercise of the right
under Article 19(1)(a) will come to an end
when such exercise threatens to infringe
the fundamental right of another. Such a
limitation is inherent in the exercise of the
right under Article 19(1)(a). Hence the
lawyers cannot go on strike infringing the
fundamental right of the litigants for
speedy trial. The right to practise any
profession or to carry on any occupation
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) may include
the right to discontinue such profession or
occupation but it will not include any right
to abstain from appearing in Court while
holding a vakalat in the case. Similarly, the
exercise of the right to protest by the
lawyers cannot be allowed to infract the
litigant's fundamental right for speedy trial
or to interfere with the administration of
justice. The lawyer has a duty and
obligation to cooperate with the Court in
the orderly and pure administration of
justice. Members of the legal profession
have certain social obligations also and the
practice of law has a public utility flavour.
According to the Bar Council of India
Rules, 1975 'an advocate shall, at all times,
comport himself in a manner befitting his
1286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
status as an officer of the Court, a
privileged member of the community and a
gentleman, bearing in mind that what may
be lawful and moral for a person who is not
a member of the Bar or for a member of the
Bar in his non-professional capacity, may
still be improper for an advocate'. It is
below the dignity, honour and status of the
members of the noble profession of law to
organize and participate in strike. It is
unprofessional and unethical to do so.