# Smt. Vimlawati Devi v. Tehsildar, Tehsil - Hata, District - Kushi Nagar & Ors

- **Citation:** WRIT-C No. 6407 of 2020
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-24
- **Case number:** WRIT-C No. 6407 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vimlawati-devi-v-tehsildar-tehsil-hata-district-kushi-nagar-ors-46236
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A.Civil Law- UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Agricultural Dispute - Significance of need to
decide it expeditiously - State of Uttar Pradesh
has a substantial agrarian economy and
majority of its citizens live in villages -
Agricultural land is, therefore, of utmost
importance to the citizenry living in the villages
- Issues and disputes relating to agricultural
lands are to be dealt with by the revenue
courts/authorities - The fact that such large
number of writs are being filed only with the
prayer to expedite proceedings pending before
revenue authorities/courts is a matter of serious
concern - Apart from creating discord amongst
otherwise closely knit social set up it is one of
the
primary
cause
for
commission
of
crimes/offences in villages. (Para 3)
B.
Revenue
Court
-
Adjudication
of
agricultural disputes - Need of knowledge of
law and Separate Cadre of judicially trained
persons - Propriety of allocating the judicial
work
before
the
revenue
courts
to
administrative
officers
lacking
the
basic
awareness of law - Held, the Revenue Courts
also perform judicial functions and their
Presiding Officers are expected to be legally
trained persons who can work independently -
Knowledge in the field of Law is otherwise
expected of such officers as they interpret
various provisions of law and their decisions
attain finality - This aspect does not appear to
have been examined - Quality of determination
by those who even do not have a law degree is
likely to suffer. (Para 15 and 16)
C.
Revenue
Tribunal
and
Officers
-
Appointment - Independence of process - Need
of Consultation of Chief Justice - The Revenue
Courts established under the Code of 2006
apparently have all attributes of a Tribunal -
The officers manning Revenue Courts are
1820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore expected to be at least law graduates
and adequately trained to deal with the disputes
arising before the Revenue Courts - Apex
Court's observation that the appointment of the
President of the Revenue Tribunal had to be
made only after consultation with the Chief
Justice of that State, relied upon - Held that
being a part of the judicial dispensation system
of State the Revenue Courts are also expected
to be given their independence in accordance
with the constitutional scheme - The issue was
treated as an issue of larger public interest -
Additional Chief Secretary was called upon to
file affidavit. (Para 17, 18 and 19)
Writ Petition kept pending (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

3-5 All. Smt. Vimlawati Devi Vs. Tehsildar, Tehsil Hata, District Kushi Nagar & Ors.
1819

11.

In
the
case
of
P.S.Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 2271), the Apex
Court has held thus:-

"A person aggrieved by an order
or promoting a junior over his head should
approach the Court at least within six
months or at the most a year of such
promotion..

It is not that there is any period of
limitation for the Court to exercise their
powers under Article 226 nor is it that
there can never be a case where the Courts
cannot interfere in a matter after the
passage of a certain length of time. But it
would be a sound and wise exercise of
discretion for the Courts to refuse to
exercise their extraordinary powers under
Article 226 in the case of persons who do
not approach it expeditiously for relief and
who stand by and allow things to happen
and then approach the Court to put
forward stale claim and try to unsettle
settled matters. The petitioner's petition
should, therefore, have been dismissed in
limine.

12. In view of the above, we decline
to interfere with the order impugned in the
present writ petition. The writ petition fails
and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------

(2020)03-05ILR A1819
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

WRIT-C No. 6407 of 2020

Smt. Vimlawati Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Tehsildar, Tehsil - Hata, District - Kushi
Nagar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Akhilesh K Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.Civil Law- UP Revenue Code, 2006 -
Agricultural Dispute - Significance of need to
decide it expeditiously - State of Uttar Pradesh
has a substantial agrarian economy and
majority of its citizens live in villages -
Agricultural land is, therefore, of utmost
importance to the citizenry living in the villages
- Issues and disputes relating to agricultural
lands are to be dealt with by the revenue
courts/authorities - The fact that such large
number of writs are being filed only with the
prayer to expedite proceedings pending before
revenue authorities/courts is a matter of serious
concern - Apart from creating discord amongst
otherwise closely knit social set up it is one of
the
primary
cause
for
commission
of
crimes/offences in villages. (Para 3)
B.
Revenue
Court
-
Adjudication
of
agricultural disputes - Need of knowledge of
law and Separate Cadre of judicially trained
persons - Propriety of allocating the judicial
work
before
the
revenue
courts
to
administrative
officers
lacking
the
basic
awareness of law - Held, the Revenue Courts
also perform judicial functions and their
Presiding Officers are expected to be legally
trained persons who can work independently -
Knowledge in the field of Law is otherwise
expected of such officers as they interpret
various provisions of law and their decisions
attain finality - This aspect does not appear to
have been examined - Quality of determination
by those who even do not have a law degree is
likely to suffer. (Para 15 and 16)
C.
Revenue
Tribunal
and
Officers
-
Appointment - Independence of process - Need
of Consultation of Chief Justice - The Revenue
Courts established under the Code of 2006
apparently have all attributes of a Tribunal -
The officers manning Revenue Courts are
1820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore expected to be at least law graduates
and adequately trained to deal with the disputes
arising before the Revenue Courts - Apex
Court's observation that the appointment of the
President of the Revenue Tribunal had to be
made only after consultation with the Chief
Justice of that State, relied upon - Held that
being a part of the judicial dispensation system
of State the Revenue Courts are also expected
to be given their independence in accordance
with the constitutional scheme - The issue was
treated as an issue of larger public interest -
Additional Chief Secretary was called upon to
file affidavit. (Para 17, 18 and 19)
Writ Petition kept pending (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. PIL No. 53556 of 2015; Yashpal Singh Vs. St.
of U.P. & ors. decided on 01 March 2016
2. Writ Petition No. 1184 (M/B) of 2016;
Ayodhya Prasad Tripathi & ors. Vs. St. of U.P. &
ors. decided on 09 January 2018
3. St. of Mah. Vs. Labour Law Practitioners'
Assc. & ors., (1998) 2 SCC 688
4. St. of Guj. Vs. Guj. Revenue Tribunal Bar
Assc. & anr., (2012) 10 SCC 353

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. Petitioner is permitted to implead
State
of
Uttar
Pradesh
through
its
Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, U.P.
at Lucknow as well as Chairman of the
Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad as
respondent nos.4 and 5 respectively, and
notices on behalf of said respondent is also
accepted by learned Standing Counsel.

2. Twenty eight writ petitions filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India have been assigned by Hon'ble The
Chief Justice to be heard by this Court.
Eighteen out of these twenty eight petitions
i.e. Writ Petition Nos.6407 of 2020, 6419
of 2020, 6453 of 2020, 6461 of 2020, 6462
of 2020, 6435 of 2020, 6448 of 2020, 6472
of 2020, 6473 of 2020, 6474 of 2020, 6478
of 2020, 6483 of 2020, 6491 of 2020, 6495
of 2020, 6501 of 2020, 6513 of 2020, 6519
of 2020 and 6525 of 2020, raise a common
grievance that proceedings before the
revenue courts/authorities under the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act of
1950'), U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901
(hereinafter referred to as ''Act of 1901')
and U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as ''Code of 2006') are being
kept pending for unduly long (even decades
in
some
cases)
causing
innumerable
difficulties for the petitioners. Prayer is,
consequently, made to command the
authorities concerned to expedite the
proceedings. Writ Petition No.6407 of 2020
is taken as the leading case and all other
petitions have been connected to it.

3. State of Uttar Pradesh has a
substantial agrarian economy and majority
of its citizens live in villages. Agricultural
land is, therefore, of utmost importance to
the citizenry living in the villages. Issues
and disputes relating to agricultural lands
like
mutation,
demarcation,
partition,
removal of encroachment, title disputes etc.
are to be dealt with by the revenue
courts/authorities. The fact that such large
number of writs are being filed only with
the prayer to expedite proceedings pending
before revenue authorities/courts is a matter
of serious concern. Apart from creating
discord amongst otherwise closely knit
social set up it is one of the primary cause
for commission of crimes/offences in
villages. It is, therefore, necessary for this
Court to examine the concern in wider
perspective and issue necessary directions
in that regard.
3-5 All. Smt. Vimlawati Devi Vs. Tehsildar, Tehsil Hata, District Kushi Nagar & Ors.
1821

4. The Act of 1950 made provisions
for constitution of the Revenue Courts
specified in Schedule II, referred to in
Section 331 of the Act of 1950, and also
specified the nature of jurisdiction to be
exercised by them. By virtue of Section
330 and 331 of the Act of 1950 the
jurisdiction of civil courts stood ousted in
so far as the issues triable by Revenue
Courts were concerned. These Revenue
Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh
functioned under supervision and control of
the Board of Revenue, established under
The United Provinces Board of Revenue
Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act of
1922'). The orders passed by revenue courts
attain finality under the Act(s). The Act of
1950 as also the Act of 1901 and the Act of
1922 etc. have been repealed by the Code
of 2006.

5. The Code of 2006 also provides for
the Board of Revenue in Chapter III. By
virtue of Section 8 the Board is to be the
Chief Controlling Authority in all matters
relating to disposal of cases, appeals or
revisions
and
subject
to
the
superintendence, direction and control of
the State Government, in all other matters
provided for in the Code of 2006. Chapter
XIII of the Code of 2006 provides for
jurisdiction and procedure of Revenue
Courts. Section 206 of the Code of 2006
clearly provides that no civil court shall
exercise jurisdiction over any of the matters
specified in the Second Schedule and no
other court than the Revenue Court or the
Revenue Officer specified in Column 3 of
Third Schedule shall entertain any suit,
application or proceedings specified in
Column 2 thereof. Section 207 provides for
the remedy of first appeal while Section
208 provides a remedy of second appeal in
a case involving substantial question of
law. The Board of Revenue or the
Commissioner are vested with power of
revision and the Board also has the power
of review. Section 212 permits the Board to
transfer cases from one Revenue Officer to
another. By virtue of Section 214 of the
Code of 2006 the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 and that of the
Limitation Act, 1963 are made applicable
unless otherwise provided for in the Code
of 2006.

6. Section 4 (16) of the Code of 2006
defines Revenue Court in following terms:-

"4(16) "Revenue Court" means
all or any of the following authorities (that
is to say) the Board and all members
thereof,
Commissioners,
Additional
Commissioners,
Collectors,
Additional
Collectors,
Chief
Revenue
Officers,
Assistant Collectors, Settlement Officers,
Assistant
Settlement
Officers,
Record
Officers,
Assistant
Record
Officers,
Tahsildars, Tahsildars (Judicial) and Naib
Tahsildars;"

7. The proceedings which are sought
to be expedited in this bunch of petitions
raise issues/disputes pending before the
Revenue Court/Revenue Authorities and lie
exclusively in the realm of the Code of
2006. The jurisdiction in that regard of
Civil Court stands ousted by virtue of
Second Schedule and lies exclusively in the
Revenue Court by virtue of Third Schedule
appended to the Code of 2006. The
functioning
of
the
Revenue
Authorities/Revenue
Courts,
therefore,
arise substantially for consideration in this
matter.

8. At the outset, it is worth noticing
that this is not the first occasion when the
concern in this regard is being noticed by
this Court. After the Revenue Code of 2006
1822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was enforced on 29.11.2012 a Division
Bench of this Court in PIL No.53556 of
2015 (Yashpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others) took note of the provisions of the
Code of 2006, as per which Additional
Commissioners, Additional Collectors and
Assistant Collectors were to be appointed
only to exercise judicial duties as is
assigned to them by State Government. On
30th October, 2015 the Division Bench
after considering the report submitted by
the
District
Judge
with
regard
to
functioning
of
revenue
courts
made
following observations:-

"....The
vast
proportion
of
disputes before the Revenue Courts relate
to agricultural land and property. It has
been reported that the Presiding Officers of
the Revenue Courts do not observe regular
and disciplined sittings in the Revenue
Courts and because of their administrative
duties and law and order responsibilities,
they do not get much time to devote to
judicial functioning. The report of the
District Judge suggests that one option is to
create a separate cadre of revenue officers,
who
are
devoted
to
only
judicial
functioning in the Revenue Courts or to
appoint one or two Executive Officers in
every district who can sit in the Court
throughout the day and perform judicial
duties."

This Court observed in the subsequent
order dated 4.12.2015 as under:-

"Having
regard
to
this
background, in our view, it would be
necessary for the State Government to act
in the matter to ensure that a cadre of
officers, exclusively to the resolution of
revenue cases, is created along the lines as
suggested by the Board of Revenue.
Moreover, due and appropriate attention
should be bestowed on the need to ensure
that persons so appointed have sufficient
knowledge of law so as to facilitate the
disposal of revenue cases. Since this
proposal is pending consideration before
the State Government, we direct that a
decision in that regard be taken within a
period of two months from today".

The petition ultimately came to be
disposed of vide following directions dated
1.3.2016:-

"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
3-5 All. Smt. Vimlawati Devi Vs. Tehsildar, Tehsil Hata, District Kushi Nagar & Ors.
1823
period of six months from the receipt of a
certified copy of this order."

It would be worth noticing that more
than six lakh cases were pending as on
1.1.2015 before the revenue courts.

9. Again in Ayodhya Prasad Tripathi
and others Vs. State of U.P. through
Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Revenue and others, in Writ Petition
No.1184(M/B) of 2016, the directions
issued in the case of Yashpal Singh (supra)
were reiterated by a subsequent Division
Bench and the State Government was
directed to take necessary decision in the
matter within two months. The petition has
been ultimately disposed of on 9.1.2018.

10. A period of about five years have
passed since the above directions were
issued in the matter but no satisfactory
measures appear to have been taken and the
situation has not improved.

11. In the leading writ petition no.
6407 of 2020 a prayer has been made to
direct the Tehsildar, District Kushinagar, to
dispose of the proceedings of Case No.
T.201905440205022 pending since April,
2010 under Section 34 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901. In some of the other
petitions
which
are
directed
to
be
connected with this case such proceedings
are pending for the last about two decades.
According to petitioner in the present case
she has purchased certain land situated in
Village Ahirauli, Tappa Bachholi, Pargana
Sahjahanpur,
Tehsil
Hata,
District
Kushinagar on 8th March, 2010 and has
applied for mutation of her name but even
after expiry of 10 years, the proceedings
have not been concluded. The ordersheet
has been annexed, according to which
hundred of dates have been fixed but the
Tehsildar concerned has not decided the
matter, so far. Similar are the facts in other
seventeen cases which are clubbed with the
present writ petition.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that there is only one Tehsildar
(Judicial)
in
Tehsil
Hata,
District
Kushinagar, who is mostly engaged in
other Protocol and VIP Duty etc. and has
no time to attend judicial proceedings. It is
stated that even summary proceedings are
kept pending for decades together and even
routine orders are not passed. Thereafter,
unless this Court intervenes the situation is
not likely to change.

13. Prima facie, this Court finds
petitioner's grievance to have substance.
Mutation
proceedings
are
admittedly
summary in nature and ought to be
concluded, expeditiously, or else various
other complications arise for the parties.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that neither any separate cadre of
judicially trained persons is created to
discharge the work of Revenue Courts
including Tehsildar (Judicial) and the work
assigned to them is virtually placed at the
bottom with priority given to other
administrative and protocol matters. The
ordersheet of the pending case is a sad
reflection of the casual manner in which
proceedings are routinely adjourned, which
results in no orders being passed, as is
expected of the revenue authority/court.

15. It would also be relevant to note
that the judicial work before the revenue
courts is being allocated to administrative
officers who even lack the basic awareness
of law, inasmuch as a law degree is not
even mandatory for them. While dealing
with appointment of Presiding Officers of
1824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Labour Court the Supreme Court of
India in the case of The State of
Maharashtra Vs. Labour Law Practitioners'
Association and others, reported in (1998)
2 SCC 688, observed that Industrial
Tribunals have the trappings of a court and
the functions performed by their Presiding
Officers has to be regarded as judicial
functions. After referring to Article 234 to
236 of the Constitution of India the
Supreme Court observed as under:-

"The District Judge, therefore,
covers a judge of any Principal Civil Court
of Original Jurisdiction. With an increase in
the numbers of a specialised courts and
tribunals which are being set up to deal
with specific kinds of civil litigation which
would otherwise have been dealt with b y
the ordinary civil courts, we now have a
number of specialised courts exercising
different
categories
of
civil
original
jurisdiction. It can be specialised civil
original jurisdiction pertaining to Labour
and Industrial disputes specified in the
relevant Acts as in the case of Labour and
Industrial Courts, or it could be pertaining
to recovery of bank debts and so on. The
structure of civil courts exercising original
jurisdiction is no longer monolithic. The
judge of the Principal Civil Court heading
the concerned set of courts under him an d
exercising that jurisdiction can also fall in
the category of a "District Judge" by
whatever name called. Learned single
judge and learned Judges of the Division
Bench have, therefor, held t hat and
Industrial Court is a civil court exercising
civil original jurisdiction; and the person
presiding over it could well be termed as a
District Judge. The term "District Judge"
should not b e confined only to the judge of
the Principal Civil Court in the hierarchy of
general civil courts. The term would now
have to include also the hierarchy of
specialised civil courts, such as a hierarchy
of Labour Courts and Industrial Courts.
The
fact
that
the
Chief
Presidency
Magistrate and the Sessions Judge were
also included in the definition of "District"
Judge indicates that a wide interpretation is
to be given tot he expression "District
Judge". The extensive definition of a
District Judge under Article 236 is
indicative of the same.

Under
Article
236
(b),
the
expression "judicial service" is defined to
mean "a service consisting exclusively of
persons intended to fill the post of district
judge and other civil judicial posts inferior
to the post of district judge." Judicial
service thus postulates a hierarchy of courts
with t he District Judge as the head an d
other
judicial
officers
under
him
discharging only judicial functions.

...........

We need not refer at length to
various other judgment which have dealt
with the question whether a Tribunal set up
under different Acts which were before the
Court in each case was a judicial body or a
court, and whether it was a court
subordinate to the High Court. In Harinagar
Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder
Jhunjhunwala & Ors. [AIR 1951 SC 1559],
the
Central
Government
exercising
appellate powers under Section 111 of the
Companies Act was held to be acting as a
judicial body and not as an administrative
body. In t he case of Shripatrao Dajisahab
Ghatge & Anr v. The State of Maharashtra
& Anr. [AIR 1977 Bombay 384], the term
"courts" was held to cover all tribunals
which were basically courts performing
judicial functions giving judgments which
were binding and exercising sovereign
judicial power transferred tot hem by the
State. It was held that High Court could
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227
over such tribunals. A Full Bench of the
3-5 All. Smt. Vimlawati Devi Vs. Tehsildar, Tehsil Hata, District Kushi Nagar & Ors.
1825
Gujarat High Court in the case of Shaikh
Mohammedbhikhan Hussainbhai & etc. v.
The Manage, Chandrabhanu Cinema &
Ors, etc. [1986 Lab I.C. 1749] held that
Labour Courts and Industrial Courts were
courts for the purposes of contempt of
Courts
Act
and
were
also
courts
subordinate to the High Court.

...........

The constitutional scheme under
Chapter V of Part VI dealing with the High
Courts and Chapter VI of Par VI dealing
with eh subordinate courts shows a clear
anxiety on the part of the framers of the
Constitution to preserve and promote
independence of the judiciary from the
executive. Thus Article 233 which deals
with
appointment
of
District
judges
requires that such appointments shall be
made by the Governor of the State in
consultation with the High Court. Article
233(2) has been interpreted as prescribing
that "a person in the service of the Union or
the State" can refer only to a person in the
judicial service of the Union or the State.
Article 234 which deals with recruitment of
persons other that District Judges to the
judicial
service
requires
that
their
appointments can be made only in
accordance with the Rules framed b y the
Governor of the State after consultation
with the State Public Service Commission
and with the High Court. Article 235
provides that he control over district courts
and courts subordinate thereto shall be
vested in the High Court; and Article 236
defines the expression "District Judge"
extensively as covering judges of a city
civil court etc, as earlier set out, and the
expression "judicial service" as meaning a
service consisting exclusively of persons
intended to fill the post of the District
Judge and other civil judicial posts inferior
to the post of District judge. Therefore,
bearing in mind the principle of separation
of powers and independence of the
judiciary, judicial service contemplates a
service exclusively of judicial posts in
which their will be a hierarchy headed by a
District Judge. The High Court has rightly
come to the conclusion that the persons
presiding over Industrial and Labour Courts
would constitute a judicial service so
defined. Therefore, the recruitment of
Labour Court judges is required to be made
in accordance with Article 235 of the
Constitution."

16. The Revenue Courts also perform
judicial functions and their Presiding
Officers are expected to be legally trained
persons who can work independently.
Knowledge in the field of Law is otherwise
expected of such officers as they interpret
various provisions of law and their
decisions attain finality. This aspect does
not appear to have been examined. Quality
of determination by those who even do not
have a law degree is likely to suffer. Large
number of writ petitions are, therefore,
entertained against the orders passed by the
revenue courts as the rights of parties,
including title matters, are decided finally
by such courts.

17. The Revenue Courts established
under the Code of 2006 apparently have all
attributes of a Tribunal. The officers
manning Revenue Courts are therefore
expected to be at least law graduates and
adequately trained to deal with the disputes
arising before the Revenue Courts. It would
be worth referring at this stage to a
judgment of the Supreme Court of India
arising out of a challenge laid to the
appointment of President of the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal, wherein the Gujarat
High Court had set aside the appointment
of the President of the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal. While affirming the view taken
1826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the Gujarat High Court the Hon'ble
Supreme Court extensively examined the
statutory provisions relating to constitution
of Tribunal as also the procedure to be
followed by it and the duty cast upon it to
act judicially. The orders of Tribunal were
found amenable to exercise of jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India. In such
circumstances the Apex Court held that the
appointment of the President of the Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal had to be made only
after consultation with the Chief Justice of
that State. Following observations of the
Apex Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal Bar Association and
another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 353, are
reproduced hereinafter:-

"16. Although the term "court"
has not been defined under the Act, it is
indisputable that courts belong to the
judicial
hierarchy
and
constitute
the
country's judiciary as distinct from the
executive or legislative branches of the
State.
Judicial
functions
involve
the
decision of rights and liabilities of the
parties. An enquiry and investigation into
facts is a material part of judicial function.
The legislature, in its wisdom has created
tribunals and transferred the work which
was regularly done by the civil courts to
them, as it was found necessary to do so in
order to provide efficacious remedy and
also to reduce the burden on the civil courts
and further, also to save the aggrieved
person from bearing the burden of heavy
court fees, etc. Thus, the system of
tribunals was created as a machinery for the
speedy disposal of claims arising under a
particular statute/Act. Most of the tribunals
have been given the power to lay down
their own procedure. In some cases, the
procedure may be adopted by the tribunal
and the same may require the approval of
the
competent
authority/Government.
However, in each case, the principles of
natural justice are required to be observed.
Such tribunals therefore, basically perform
quasi-judicial functions. The system of
tribunals is hence, unlike that of the
regularly constituted courts under the
hierarchy of judicial system which are not
authorised to devise their own procedure
for dealing with cases. Under certain
statutes tribunals have been authorised to
exercise certain powers conferred under
some provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
"CPC") or the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as "CrPC"), but not
under the whole Code, be it Civil or
Criminal. However, in a regular court, the
said Codes, in their entirety, Civil as well
as Criminal, must be strictly adhered to.
Therefore, from the above, it is evident that
the terms "court" and "tribunal" are not
interchangeable.

17.
A
tribunal
may
not
necessarily be a court, in spite of the fact
that it may be presided over by a judicial
officer, as other qualified persons may also
possibly be appointed to perform such duty.
One of the tests to determine whether a
tribunal is a court or not, is to check
whether the High Court has revisional
jurisdiction so far as the judgments and
orders passed by the tribunal are concerned.
The supervisory or revisional jurisdiction is
considered to be a power vesting in any
superior court or tribunal, enabling it to
satisfy itself as regards the correctness of
the orders of the inferior tribunal. This is
the basic difference between appellate and
supervisory jurisdiction. The appellate
jurisdiction confers a right upon the
aggrieved person to complain in the
prescribed manner to a higher forum
whereas, supervisory/revisional power has
a different object and purpose altogether as
3-5 All. Smt. Vimlawati Devi Vs. Tehsildar, Tehsil Hata, District Kushi Nagar & Ors.
1827
it confers the right and responsibility upon
the higher forum to keep the subordinate
tribunals within the limits of the law. It is
for this reason that revisional power can be
exercised by the competent authority/court
suo motu, in order to see that subordinate
tribunals do not transgress the rules of law
and are kept within the framework of
powers
conferred
upon
them.
Such
revisional powers have to be exercised
sparingly, only as a discretion in order to
prevent gross injustice and the same cannot
be claimed, as a matter of right by any
party. Even if the person heading the
tribunal is otherwise a "judicial officer", he
may merely be persona designata, but not a
court, despite the fact that he is expected to
act in a quasi-judicial manner. In the
generic sense, a court is also a tribunal,
however, courts are only such tribunals as
have been created by the statute concerned
and belong to the judicial department of a
State as opposed to the executive branch of
the said State. The expression "court" is
understood in the context of its normally
accepted connotation, as an adjudicating
body, which performs judicial functions of
rendering definitive judgments having a
sense of finality and authoritativeness to
bind the parties litigating before it.
Secondly, it should be in the course of
exercise of the sovereign judicial power
transferred to it by the State. Any tribunal
or authority therefore, that possesses these
attributes, may be categorised as a court.

29. The present writ petition was
filed on the premise that the post of the
President of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal
was covered by the expression "District
Judge", as has been defined under Article
236 of the Constitution; the definition
being an exclusive one, and thus, in view of
the provisions of Article 233 of the
Constitution, the appointment of the
President of the Tribunal can be made only
upon consultation with the High Court. In
the alternative it was suggested that the said
Tribunal is a court and that the post of the
President is one of judicial service, and in
view of the provisions of Article 234 of the
Constitution, the appointment of the
President
can
be
made
only
upon
consultation with the High Court, as well as
the Gujarat Public Services Commission.
Even otherwise, having regard to the
functions, powers and duties vested in the
President, a person with legal qualification
and long judicial experience should alone
be appointed as President. Reference to the
Bombay
Legislative
Assembly
debate
dated 18-4-1939, as expressed by the then
Revenue
Minister,
revealed
that
the
intention of the legislature had been that the
post be filled by a retired High Court
Judge, or a District Judge of not less than
ten years' standing. Further, the Tribunal
dealing with various cases under the
Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act,
1960, the Gujarat Private Forests Act, the
Bombay Public Trusts Act, the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the
Bombay Jagirdari
and Other Tenure
Abolition Act, and with questions of title
under Section 37(2) of the Bombay Land
Revenue Court has to deal with large
number of civil disputes between the
citizens,
as
well
as
between
the
Government and citizens and, it is pertinent
to note that at the relevant time of filing of
this writ petition, 6500 cases were pending
before the Tribunal. With these assertions,
the prayers made by the writ petitioners
were mainly to declare Sections 4 and 20 of
the
1958
Act
as
ultra
vires
and
unconstitutional on the grounds that they
gave absolute unguided power to the State
Government in relation to the appointment
of the President, and further, to declare
Rule 3(1) so far as it authorises the
1828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointment of the Secretary, as ultra vires
and
void,
and
also
to
quash
the
appointment of the respondent as the
President.

33.
During
the
course
of
arguments before the High Court, the
learned Additional Advocate General had
conceded that the judgments and orders
passed by the Tribunal can be challenged
under Article 227 of the Constitution. Thus,
it has been conceded before the High Court
that the High Court has supervisory control
over the Tribunal to the extent that it can
revise and correct the judgments and orders
passed by it. In such a fact situation, the
consultation/concurrence
of
the
High
Court, in the matter of making the
appointment of the President of the
Tribunal is required."

18. The provisions of the Code of 2006,
referred to above, would prima facie suggest
that it has all attributes of a Tribunal and the
provisions of Chapter VI of the Constitution of
India would be attracted. In the Revenue Code,
2006 the legislature has also fixed a timeline
within which various proceedings are required
to
be
performed
by
the
Revenue
Courts/Authorities. More often than not such
timelines are not adhered to and writ petitions
are routinely filed for issuing necessary
directions
to
conclude
the
proceedings.
Contempt petitions are also being filed in large
numbers before this Court as proceedings are
not being concluded even despite directions
issued by this Court. This is not a desirable
situation. State Legislature having fixed specific
time frames for disposal of matters must also
provide for necessary supporting infrastructure
for implementing the statutory provisions
limiting the period within which disputes are to
be resolved. Merely creating rights or fixing
timelines for disposal of cases in the Legislation
will not yield any results and would remain a
farce unless necessary supporting infrastructure
is created for the purpose. As the task of
adjudication is assigned in specific areas
exclusively to the Revenue Courts it is in
utmost public interest that competent officers in
the field of law (atleast law graduates) having
adequate training are made available in
sufficient numbers or else the malaise will
continue. Being a part of the judicial
dispensation system of State the Revenue
Courts are also expected to be given their
independence
in
accordance
with
the
constitutional scheme.

19. In such circumstances, instead of
issuing a routine direction to the Revenue
Court/Revenue Authority to dispose of the
proceedings pending before it, it would be
necessary to confront the State with the
pressing issues, noticed in this order, and to
call upon the Additional Chief Secretary of
the Department concerned to examine it in
larger public interest and to file his
personal affidavit clarifying the stand of the
State on following issues:-

(i) What is the total number of
cases pending before the Revenue Courts in
the State of Uttar Pradesh as on 1.1.2020?

(ii)
Whether
any
specialized
cadre of law knowing officers has been
created to man the Revenue Courts and
what
is
the
minimum
qualification
prescribed for them at different levels? The
strength of cadre at different levels would
also be specified both in terms of its
sanction and the officers existing as on
1.1.2020.

(iii)
Whether
the
officers
manning
the
Revenue
Courts
are
exclusively
entrusted
with
the
task
specified in the Revenue Code 2006 or are
given other administrative and protocol
duties, etc.?

(iv) How the State proposes to
provide fair and early disposal of cases
3-5 All. Rajiv @ Raju Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1829
pending before Revenue Courts/Revenue
Authorities?

(v) Whether the Chairman and
the Members of the Board of Revenue are
appointed in consultation with Hon'ble The
Chief Justice?

The required affidavit would be filed
by the Additional Chief Secretary of
Revenue Department of the State of Uttar
Pradesh, within four weeks.

20. Since the issues noticed in this
order are predominantly found to be in
public interest, as such, the Registry is
directed to treat this matter alongwith
connected petitions as a Public Interest
Litigation and to place it on 6th April, 2020
before a bench to be nominated by Hon'ble
the Chief Justice.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1829
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

WRIT-C No. 11448 of 2017

Rajiv @ Raju Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudeep Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sher Bahadur Yadav, Sri Shiv
Shankar Gupta

d- mrj izns"k vko";d oLrq 1⁄4foØ; ,oa forj.k fu;U«k.k
dk fofu;eu1⁄2 vkns"k] 2016 & mfpr ewY; dh nqdku &
vuqcU/k i«k dk fujLrhdj.k & uSlfxZd U;k; dk fl)kUr
& tkap fjiksV dh izfr miYkC/k u djkus dk izHkko &
dk;Zokgh pkgs U;kf;d gks ;k iz"kklfud ;k v/kZ&U;kf;d]
uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUr dk ikYku gksuk vko";d gS &
fu.kZ; Yksus dh izfØ;k esa fu'i{krk lqfuf"pr djuk fu'i{k
fu.kZ; ds vf/kdkj dk ,d egÙoiw.kZ LrEHk gS & leLr
dk;Zokgh dk ,dek«k vk/kkj tkap vk[;k gS] ftldh izfr
miYkC/k u djkuk uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUr dk mYYka?ku gS
& fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUr dk
vuqikYku u djus ds vk/kkj ij leLr dk;Zokgh fujLr
fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1⁄4iSjk 13] 14 ,oa 151⁄2
A.
Civil
Law-Uttar
Pradesh
Essential
Commodities (Regulation of Sale and
Distribution Control) Order, 2016 - Fair
Price Shop - Cancellation of Licence -
Principle of Natural Justice - Effect of not
providing the copy of Enquiry Report -
The principle of natural justice is required
to be followed in every proceeding, it is
either judicial or administrative or quasijudicial - Ensuring the fairness during
adjudicating process is significant for right
to get fair justice - Not providing the copy
of the enquiry report, which is the sole
basis of the entire process, is violation of
principle of natural justice - Held, noncompliance of principle of natural justice
may result into quashing of entire process.
(Para 13, 14 and 15)
fjV ;kfpdk fuLrkfjr 1⁄4 E-11⁄2
Writ Petition disposed off (E-1)
mYysf[kr iwoZ&fu.kZ;
1- fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 4011 lu~ 2010 jked`ikYk
;kno cuke m0 iz0 ljdkj ,oa vU; dk fu.kZ;
fnukafdr 05-05-2011
2- ,l0 ,Yk0 diwj cuke txeksgu ,.M lUl
1980 1⁄441⁄2 ,l-lh-lh- 379
3- ,l ,l fxYk cuke phQ bYksD"ku dfe"kuj
1978 1⁄411⁄2 ,l-lh-lh- 405

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. वतुमान व्यवहार प्रकीणु यालचका
के माध्यम से याची ने प्राथुना की है लक,
आयुक्, आजमगढ मण्डल, आजमगढ