Revenue Courts Cannot Pass Orders Using Rubber Stamp Seal, Order Sheet Must Be Signed: Allahabad High Court Reiterates
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that revenue courts are not supposed to pass orders using the rubber seal stamp.“As per law the rubber stamp seal cannot be used for passing the orders and Revenue Courts are not supposed to pass the order by using the rubber stamp seal as per observation made by this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Hanuman Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and...
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that revenue courts are not supposed to pass orders using the rubber seal stamp.
“As per law the rubber stamp seal cannot be used for passing the orders and Revenue Courts are not supposed to pass the order by using the rubber stamp seal as per observation made by this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Hanuman Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in MANU/UP/0405/2006,” held Justice Saurabh Lavania.
While dealing with a matter under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking expeditious disposal of the case under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, the Court observed that the dates on the order sheet of the Court below had not been scribed. Instead rubber stamp seal was used for fixing the next date of hearing.
The Court relied on Hanuman Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, wherein the Allahabad High Court discussed the U.P. Revenue Courts Manual at length and observed that
“Before proceeding further, provisions of the U.P. Revenue Courts Manual may be usefully scanned. Rule 30 of the Manual clearly prescribes that order-sheet has to be written by the Presiding Officer or by an officer of the Court and further it has to be signed by Presiding Officer. The Note to the aforesaid Rule envisages that an officer should be appointed in respect of each Court to sign the order fixing the adjourned date under Rule 32, in the absence of the Presiding Officer due to sudden illness or some other such cause. Again, Rule 32 of the Manual envisages that order affixing dates or directing anything to be done by parties should be signed by parties or their pleaders.”
Accordingly, the Court directed the Tehsildar concerned to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months. Further, directions have been issued to the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh to “appraise the revenue courts, the manner in which the order sheet should be drawn.”
Case Title: Smt. Sumitra Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow And 4 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5755 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 437