Allahabad High Court Takes Cognizance Of Pendency Of Cases In UP Revenue Courts, Seeks Response Of UP Govt, State Bar Council

The Allahabad High Court has taken cognizance of the issue of pendency of cases in revenue courts of Uttar Pradesh and has sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government and the state bar council over the steps taken by them to ameliorate and ease the grave situation.

The Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh has sought the responses of the Chief Secretary (Revenue), State of U.P., Chairman, Board of Revenue at Prayagraj and Lucknow, Principal Secretary (Law), State of U.P., and Chairman, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and has posted the matter for further hearing o August 3.

The bench took note of the enormous pendency of cases before the revenue courts while dealing with a plea of one Kamlesh Sharma who had approached the Court seeking expeditious disposal of her mutation case pending before the Nayab Tehsildar, Jahangirganj, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

When the Court persued the order sheet record of the concerned revenue court, it found that an application for the expedition was preferred by the petitioner on 21st October 2021, however, the same has not been decided yet, and instead, the matter has been fixed for hearing before the Board of Revenue on 19.07.2022.

The Court noted that it has come across many cases wherein a prayer for an expedition is sought by the parties and in largely all of the petitions the petitioners, the parties bring on record the extracts of the order sheets which divulge a serious malaise affecting the functioning of the revenue courts.

"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...Rather this court is pained to say that this problem across the revenue courts is rampant." the Court added.

Regarding the delay in disposal of cases, the Court stressed that the Constitution of India envisages the concept of social justice which is a Basic Structure Doctrine of our constitution.

The Court noted that the concept of social justice is not uni-dimensional and rather, it is a concept that can be seen through a prism encapsulating within itself, political and social spheres. 

"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," the Court further remarked.

The Court also took into account the mandate of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which provides timelines for the disposal of the cases which range from 45 days to six months depending on the nature of the case.

"...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," the Court observed

The Court noted that the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 also gives a list of cases, 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.

The U.P. Revenue Court Manual Regulations, 2016, the Court added, contains relevant guidelines for the purposes of the conduct of day-to-day affairs of the cases pending before the Revenue Courts and Authorities.

The Court also underscored that 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.

Significantly, the Court also opined that it 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 and this is one major cause of delay.

"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 Authorities is indicative that the Presiding Officers are completely oblivious to the said regulations and there is even no effort of its adherence," the Court further added.

The Court also identified another factor that contributes to the pendency of the cases before the Revenue court and that is the grant of endless adjournment at the asking of any party, least realizing what effect it has on the rights of the parties involved in litigation.

Consequently, the Court took cognizance of the matter and directed the (i) Chief Secretary (Revenue), State of U.P. (ii) Chairman Board of Revenue both at Prayagraj and Lucknow, and (iii) Principal Secretary (Law) to"

"...take note of the systematic delay which is deeply rooted in the system and monitor the same by not only instructing the officers to follow the Regulations of 2016 but by continuous monitoring as well as inform this Court what efforts, ways and means have been devised by the State to ensure that the litigation pending before the Revenue Courts are decided on priority and also hold consultative dialogues with the members of the Bar by inviting the members of the Bar Council who is the representative body of the lawyers in the State and devise a Scheme, methodology for shunning the practice 30. of strikes and proceeding ahead in deciding matters judicially for ameliorating the plight of the litigants."

Case title - Kamlesh Singh v. Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1602 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order