Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and another

The report submitted by the Consolidation Officer is written on a very nonchalant note which we do not appreciate. It neither shows enthusiasm nor the conventional courtesy that ought be showed to the High Court. The first remark is that the petitioner's objections under Section 9-A(2) are pending where notices have to be issued to the affected parties and the railway before hearing. This Court must observe that the railway is also a party and to describe them by a different nomenclature does not augur well for a judicial tribunal, even if it is not a Court properly so called. Every litigant, whether a private or a Government agency or officer or party is only a litigant before a Court and does not require any exalted mention. The next remark that has been furnished for a reason is that the former Consolidation Officer, Ravi Prakash Srivastava has been promoted to the post of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the officer submitting the report dated 07.01.2025 is the Consolidation Officer, Chitbadagaon, who is discharging the functions of Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Ballia as additional charge. The fact that the Consolidation Officer is holding the additional charge serves as no justification for the delay. Whatever duties have been assigned to him as part of his regular charge or additional charge have to be shouldered by him punctiliously. He cannot show his indignation occasioned by the extra burden. If he thinks that the burden is beyond management of a single officer, he ought to intimate his superiors of the fact including the Government through proper channel seeking the appointment of a regular incumbent. But, so long as a regular incumbent is appointed, it is the Circle Officer incumbent, whether holding additional charge or regular charge, who is responsible and bears the burden of timely dispatch. It is next reported that 25.01.2025 is fixed followed by the remark that the learned Members of the Bar on most of the days stay on strike. So far as strike by Members of the Bar is concerned, the Circle Officer ought know that strikes or abstinence from judicial work by members of the Bar is absolutely illegal and cannot be the cause for any kind of adjournment. In this connection, reference may be made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court:

The report submitted by the Consolidation Officer is written on a very nonchalant note which we do not appreciate. It neither shows enthusiasm nor the conventional courtesy that ought be showed to the High Court. The first remark is that the petitioner's objections under Section 9-A(2) are pending where notices have to be issued to the affected parties and the railway before hearing. This Court must observe that the railway is also a party and to describe them by a different nomenclature does not augur well for a judicial tribunal, even if it is not a Court properly so called. Every litigant, whether a private or a Government agency or officer or party is only a litigant before a Court and does not require any exalted mention. The next remark that has been furnished for a reason is that the former Consolidation Officer, Ravi Prakash Srivastava has been promoted to the post of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the officer submitting the report dated 07.01.2025 is the Consolidation Officer, Chitbadagaon, who is discharging the functions of Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Ballia as additional charge. The fact that the Consolidation Officer is holding the additional charge serves as no justification for the delay. Whatever duties have been assigned to him as part of his regular charge or additional charge have to be shouldered by him punctiliously. He cannot show his indignation occasioned by the extra burden. If he thinks that the burden is beyond management of a single officer, he ought to intimate his superiors of the fact including the Government through proper channel seeking the appointment of a regular incumbent. But, so long as a regular incumbent is appointed, it is the Circle Officer incumbent, whether holding additional charge or regular charge, who is responsible and bears the burden of timely dispatch. It is next reported that 25.01.2025 is fixed followed by the remark that the learned Members of the Bar on most of the days stay on strike. So far as strike by Members of the Bar is concerned, the Circle Officer ought know that strikes or abstinence from judicial work by members of the Bar is absolutely illegal and cannot be the cause for any kind of adjournment. In this connection, reference may be made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court: