District Judges Facing Peril Of Transfer Over 'Absurd' Bias Allegations, Difficult For Them To Freely Exercise Jurisdiction: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is fear in the District Judiciary in deciding cases as it may lead to administrative complaints and subsequent transfers.“They also face transfer application on hideous and absurd allegations of bias, without the slightest fear in the minds of those who make them about consequences. It is difficult for a Judge in the Civil Court to exercise...
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is fear in the District Judiciary in deciding cases as it may lead to administrative complaints and subsequent transfers.
“They also face transfer application on hideous and absurd allegations of bias, without the slightest fear in the minds of those who make them about consequences. It is difficult for a Judge in the Civil Court to exercise his jurisdiction freely, if he constantly works not just aware of the professional routine of having his orders overturned by a superior Court, but the personal peril of harm to his career, if he were to pass orders of effective consequence which his conscience says he must,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
The Court held that though citizens' attitudes toward Civil Courts cannot be accepted, Civil Courts have become lethargic due to various reasons, including strikes that take away from judicial time. The Court also observed that the prescribed court times are not being adhered to in District Courts.
The Court held that all these factors combined have made the Civil Court “a place of somewhat non-promising resort” for someone who seeks and requires quick relief.
While dismissing a petition for recovery of possession of property and injunction, the Court observed thus:
“There is a determined reluctance, a kind of annoyance and contempt in the minds of citizens towards the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts and part of it is based on pessimism and cynicism that no relief can be had from the Court of civil jurisdiction.”
The Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is of the widest amplitude and any relief which can be granted by such court can only be granted by that court. The Court held that based on convenience of the citizens, authorities which are incompetent and/or lack jurisdiction cannot be approached for seeking reliefs.
The Court held that suits for possession cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“It is no part of our business in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution virtually to entertain suits for possession,”
Factual Background
Petitioner purchased an area of 109 sq. mts. in Khata No. 00230, Gata No. 11B through a registered sale deed dated 15.02.2021 from one Vir Bahadur Singh. Her name was recorded in the revenue records. Petitioner pleaded that when she took possession of the land in May 2022, Vir Bahadur and his associates stopped her from doing so. Since no action was taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on her complaint, she lodged an FIR under SC/ST Act.
Petitioner's husband who is a Head Constable with the Provincial Armed Constabulary, Lucknow, wrote to Commandant, 35th Battalion P.A.C., Manahangar, Lucknow who then wrote to Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar. Since no action was taken by the authorities, petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for delivery of possession.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that the petition showed eroding faith of citizens in district judiciary which exercises civil jurisdiction over such matters for recovery of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction. The Court observed that the petitioner had approached every authority which had no jurisdiction in the case other than civil court which ordinarily has jurisdiction over such cases.
“A Commandant of the P.A.C. has no business to entertain a complaint of this kind and, in fact, he should not have written a letter to the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner of Police too cannot do anything to recover possession of immovable property. It is to be done by the Judge exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction and nobody else.”
The Court held that the second relief sought by the petitioner was a “cosmetic variation for a permanent prohibitory injunction.”
The Court held that only because the petitioner has not availed the remedy before the Civil Court for any reason can the jurisdiction of the civil court not be usurped by the High Court under Article 226.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Maya Devi v. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 245 [WRIT - C No. - 10451 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 245