High Court

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prashant Singh assisted by Sri Yogesh Awasthi learned counsel for the State respondents as well as Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: "1. Issue a order or direction commanding and directing the O.P. No.3 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow to let the demarcation done and carve out the bhumidhari land of Petitioners, having khata no.301, khasra no.871 measuring area 0.0384 hectare situated in Village Chandakodar, Pargana Mahona, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow by fixing the boundaries of the aforesaid plot/land, in pursuance to its order 08.01.2024, upon the application preferred by the Petitioners under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and to follow procedure of Section 24 in strict accordance with law.

2. Issue a order or direction commanding the O.P. No.3 to get the demarcation of the said land done by some other revenue inspector apart from opposite party no.04." Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they had initiated proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation which came to be decided on 08.01.2024. It is the case of the petitioners that demarcation was not done on the spot and moreover the manner in which the demarcation was carried out the same was also not in accordance with law. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioners are said to have moved several applications before the respondent no.3. It is further urged that since the demarcation was not done in accordance with law hence appropriate directions be issued that the fresh demarcation may be done. The Court by means of the order dated 19.02.2025 had directed the records to be placed before the Court. In deference to the said order the records have been place before this Court. On perusal of the said records, it appears that demarcation proceedings initiated by the petitioners had been decided on 08.01.2024. The record further indicates that thereafter on 13.02.2025, the application is said to have been made by the petitioners that an inspection may be done on which orders were passed to keep the same on the file. 2 Another application dated 12/14.02.2025 came to be filed by the petitioners on which date it was directed to be placed along with file and it is further stated that the S.D.M concerned had passed the order fixing the disposal of the said application on 22.02.2025. The order which was passed by the S.D.M dated 22.02.2025 is being reproduced hereinafter after scanning the same from the original records for two purposes i.e to state that:- (i) the order has been passed on the obverse side of the application itself. (ii) the order indicates that the petitioners were informed on telephone that their matter would be listed and taken up on 22.02.2025, thereafter, the said order is said to have been passed rejecting the said application. It will be relevant to notice that this Court has seized of the matter and on 11.02.2025, the following order was passed which reads as under:- 3 "Application for amendment has been filed by the petitioners which is common in nature and there is no legal impediment in allowing the same. Consequently, the application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall carry out the necessary amendment before the next date.. The Court has considered the same Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he requires some more time to examine the matter and clearly plead when was the demarcation report filed in the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 as well as the order sheets prior 30.11.2024 as well as post 30.11.2024 as well as the status of objections if any filed by the petitioners in the proceedings under Section 24 of Code 2006. List this matter again on 19th of February, 2025." Again, on 19.02.2025, the Court had passed the following order summoning the records and the same reads as under:- "Learned standing counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions along with an affidavit, which is said to have been filed by one B.K. Singh Parmar, who is the petitioner No.5 in the present petition, the same is taken on record. In light of the controversy involved, learned standing counsel is directed to place the original record before this Court on Monday. List on Monday i.e. 24.02.2025." Once the record had been summoned and it was to be placed before the court today, the order appears to have been passed in haste on 22.02.2024 on the order had been passed by the Court on 19.02.2025. Having taken note of the aforesaid fact, the question whether the application has been rightly or wrongly rejected is a matter of merit it is open for the parties to agitate before appropriate forum or take recourse as may be available to them in law but this Court is concerned with the manner in which the proceedings have been taken forward by the S.D.M concerned. U.P. Revenue Court Manual, clearly indicates as to how the orders are passed and there is a clear stipulation that no orders would be passed on the application itself. For ready reference, rules 29, 30 and 487 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual read as under:

29. Particulars to be written on order-sheet The order-sheet (paragraph 1202, Revenue Manual) shall contain a note of every order made in the suit or case, and shall show, the date of and the proceedings at every hearing. It shall show, amongst other matters the names of the parties resent or of their counsel, if they are represented by counsel, or of their 4 duly authorized agents and the dates on which the plaint and written statement were filed, issues were recorded, or amended, witnesses examined and the names of such witnesses, of the delivery of judgments, of the signing of the decree, and of any application for review of judgment or amendment of the decree. It shall also contain a note of every proceeding such as the reading of the deposition of a witness examined by commission; the reading of a commission's report and of the fact of any objection being made thereto and if witnesses are in attendance when a case is adjourned, the fact shall be noted.

30. Order sheet to be written by the presiding officer or an officer of the Court to be signed by presiding officer-Every order on the order-sheet shall be written by the presiding officer or by an officer of the Court under his superintendence, and shall be signed by the presiding officer. [Note 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].

487. Mentioning number of application and their details In the opening para of the application for interlocutory order or stay order or of the affidavit supporting the application it shall specifically be mentioned that the application for the relief sought for is the first application and where it is not the first application, the details of the application moved earlier and the order passed thereon shall be disclosed It appears that S.D.M concerned who is holding a very important position and is dealing with matters which come before the court in exercise of his judicial/quasi judicial powers. The manner in which the order had been passed speaks volumes. This is not appreciated which indicates clear dereliction as well as ignorance of the Regulations which mandates the Court to pass orders on order sheet. By not following the settled procedure naturally gives rise to speculation of different character. Be that as it may, since the application stands rejected, in the aforesaid backdrop, the relief which has been claimed by the petitioners in the instant petition looses its significance, in as much as, apart from the said application, there is no matter which is pending as of date which may persuade this Court to continue with the proceedings or give any direction. Needless to say that the application which was moved which was rejected for the reasons as noted in the said order does not create any impediment in the rights of petitioners to take recourse as may be available to them in law but definitely the manner in which the proceedings  have been taken forward by the S.D.M  concerned indicates the indifference with which the orders are passed. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit at this stage for this Court to pass or issue a mandamus as desired by the petitioners, accordingly, the petition is dismissed, however, the petitioners will be at liberty of taking recourse to law as may be available to them. Order Date :- 24.2.2025/Harshita 5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prashant Singh assisted by Sri Yogesh Awasthi learned counsel for the State respondents as well as Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: "1. Issue a order or direction commanding and directing the O.P. No.3 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow to let the demarcation done and carve out the bhumidhari land of Petitioners, having khata no.301, khasra no.871 measuring area 0.0384 hectare situated in Village Chandakodar, Pargana Mahona, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow by fixing the boundaries of the aforesaid plot/land, in pursuance to its order 08.01.2024, upon the application preferred by the Petitioners under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and to follow procedure of Section 24 in strict accordance with law.

2. Issue a order or direction commanding the O.P. No.3 to get the demarcation of the said land done by some other revenue inspector apart from opposite party no.04." Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they had initiated proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation which came to be decided on 08.01.2024. It is the case of the petitioners that demarcation was not done on the spot and moreover the manner in which the demarcation was carried out the same was also not in accordance with law. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioners are said to have moved several applications before the respondent no.3. It is further urged that since the demarcation was not done in accordance with law hence appropriate directions be issued that the fresh demarcation may be done. The Court by means of the order dated 19.02.2025 had directed the records to be placed before the Court. In deference to the said order the records have been place before this Court. On perusal of the said records, it appears that demarcation proceedings initiated by the petitioners had been decided on 08.01.2024. The record further indicates that thereafter on 13.02.2025, the application is said to have been made by the petitioners that an inspection may be done on which orders were passed to keep the same on the file. 2 Another application dated 12/14.02.2025 came to be filed by the petitioners on which date it was directed to be placed along with file and it is further stated that the S.D.M concerned had passed the order fixing the disposal of the said application on 22.02.2025. The order which was passed by the S.D.M dated 22.02.2025 is being reproduced hereinafter after scanning the same from the original records for two purposes i.e to state that:- (i) the order has been passed on the obverse side of the application itself. (ii) the order indicates that the petitioners were informed on telephone that their matter would be listed and taken up on 22.02.2025, thereafter, the said order is said to have been passed rejecting the said application. It will be relevant to notice that this Court has seized of the matter and on 11.02.2025, the following order was passed which reads as under:- 3 "Application for amendment has been filed by the petitioners which is common in nature and there is no legal impediment in allowing the same. Consequently, the application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall carry out the necessary amendment before the next date.. The Court has considered the same Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he requires some more time to examine the matter and clearly plead when was the demarcation report filed in the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 as well as the order sheets prior 30.11.2024 as well as post 30.11.2024 as well as the status of objections if any filed by the petitioners in the proceedings under Section 24 of Code 2006. List this matter again on 19th of February, 2025." Again, on 19.02.2025, the Court had passed the following order summoning the records and the same reads as under:- "Learned standing counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions along with an affidavit, which is said to have been filed by one B.K. Singh Parmar, who is the petitioner No.5 in the present petition, the same is taken on record. In light of the controversy involved, learned standing counsel is directed to place the original record before this Court on Monday. List on Monday i.e. 24.02.2025." Once the record had been summoned and it was to be placed before the court today, the order appears to have been passed in haste on 22.02.2024 on the order had been passed by the Court on 19.02.2025. Having taken note of the aforesaid fact, the question whether the application has been rightly or wrongly rejected is a matter of merit it is open for the parties to agitate before appropriate forum or take recourse as may be available to them in law but this Court is concerned with the manner in which the proceedings have been taken forward by the S.D.M concerned. U.P. Revenue Court Manual, clearly indicates as to how the orders are passed and there is a clear stipulation that no orders would be passed on the application itself. For ready reference, rules 29, 30 and 487 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual read as under:

29. Particulars to be written on order-sheet The order-sheet (paragraph 1202, Revenue Manual) shall contain a note of every order made in the suit or case, and shall show, the date of and the proceedings at every hearing. It shall show, amongst other matters the names of the parties resent or of their counsel, if they are represented by counsel, or of their 4 duly authorized agents and the dates on which the plaint and written statement were filed, issues were recorded, or amended, witnesses examined and the names of such witnesses, of the delivery of judgments, of the signing of the decree, and of any application for review of judgment or amendment of the decree. It shall also contain a note of every proceeding such as the reading of the deposition of a witness examined by commission; the reading of a commission's report and of the fact of any objection being made thereto and if witnesses are in attendance when a case is adjourned, the fact shall be noted.

30. Order sheet to be written by the presiding officer or an officer of the Court to be signed by presiding officer-Every order on the order-sheet shall be written by the presiding officer or by an officer of the Court under his superintendence, and shall be signed by the presiding officer. [Note 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].

487. Mentioning number of application and their details In the opening para of the application for interlocutory order or stay order or of the affidavit supporting the application it shall specifically be mentioned that the application for the relief sought for is the first application and where it is not the first application, the details of the application moved earlier and the order passed thereon shall be disclosed It appears that S.D.M concerned who is holding a very important position and is dealing with matters which come before the court in exercise of his judicial/quasi judicial powers. The manner in which the order had been passed speaks volumes. This is not appreciated which indicates clear dereliction as well as ignorance of the Regulations which mandates the Court to pass orders on order sheet. By not following the settled procedure naturally gives rise to speculation of different character. Be that as it may, since the application stands rejected, in the aforesaid backdrop, the relief which has been claimed by the petitioners in the instant petition looses its significance, in as much as, apart from the said application, there is no matter which is pending as of date which may persuade this Court to continue with the proceedings or give any direction. Needless to say that the application which was moved which was rejected for the reasons as noted in the said order does not create any impediment in the rights of petitioners to take recourse as may be available to them in law but definitely the manner in which the proceedings  have been taken forward by the S.D.M  concerned indicates the indifference with which the orders are passed. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit at this stage for this Court to pass or issue a mandamus as desired by the petitioners, accordingly, the petition is dismissed, however, the petitioners will be at liberty of taking recourse to law as may be available to them. Order Date :- 24.2.2025/Harshita 5