Gaonsabha Mathura Nagar v. Ram Baran Chauhan, under Section

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that certain proceedings were initiated by the State respondent under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which came to be decided ex parte against the petitioner on 7.6.2024. It is urged that the petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings and only on 26.2.2025, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 22.2.2024 a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.1 and it is urged that in the said notice, it was stated that the petitioner was required to remove his construction within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which the State authorities would remove the said offending constructions by force. The submission is that since the said notice though dated 22.2.2024 was served on the petitioner only on 26.2.2025, accordingly the period of seven days as provided in the nature was to reckoned from the date of receipt of the notice and thus it would expire on 4.3.2025. However, without waiting for the same, on 27.3.2025, the State authorities alongwith their force removed the offending constructions which has caused irreparable injury to the petitioner. It is further urged that an application seeking recall of the order dated 7.6.2024 was filed before the respondent no.1 on 27.2.2025 but even the same was not entertained and was kept by respondent no.2 as a result the petitioner could not get a hearing on his application for recall nor he could protect his possession which has been disturbed by the State authorities prior to the date which was fixed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.14, Ram Sanehi Ghat, Barabanki seeking a decree of permanent injunction which was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. but since it was against the State authorities hence no ex parte injunction was granted and even though the date was fixed yet prior to the said date fixed, inevitable happened. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the action of the respondent State authorities in removing the offending construction is bad in the eyes of law. Having considered the written instructions, it would reveal that it has been stated therein by the Tehsildar that he has not received any notice from the Civil Court. This appears to be quite surprising and doubtful for the reason that since the suit for injunction was filed against the State authorities, the suit in itself would not have been maintainable without complying with Section 80 C.P.C. In any case, even if the suit for injunction was entertained by grating exemption to the petitioner in terms of Section 80(2) C.P.C. but the fact remains that the application for interim injunction could not have been considered without service on the State authorities and where the State is represented through the District Government Counsel (Civil), it is most unlikely that the notices were not served as stated by the Tehsildar in his written instructions which for the aforesaid reason, appears to be doubtful. This assumes significance for the reason that where an attempt is being made to dispossess/ remove the offending constructions, it would have been the duty of the State to have come up fairly, however to state in the instructions that no notice has been received indicates that an attempt is being made to misguide the court by the Tehsildar concerned. In law, there is no difference between the parties that is to say that in case, if, a private respondent does not disclose the true and correct facts, can be penalised and such an immunity can be granted to the State, is not correct. The State is equally bound to come up with true and correct facts and specially when the Court had asked by means of its order dated 5.3.2025, the State was bound to give a candid disclosure, however this Court finds that the instructions which have been given to this Court by the Tehsildar concerned, fails to abide by the aforesaid standard and it appears to have been sent in a mechanical manner without any proper verification. This act of providing misleading instructions is deprecated at the behest of the Tehsildar. Be that as it may, since as per the petitioner himself, his constructions have been removed, his application for recall has been filed which as per the State respondent has not been received by them but nevertheless this Court permits the petitioner that in case if he so chooses, he may take recourse to the provisions as may be available to him in law against an order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. In case if he chooses to move any application before the Tehsildar, he may do so afresh and the same shall be entertained on the very same day and appropriate orders would be passed after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournments as expeditiously as possible. This Court has made the aforesaid observation for the said application, for the reason that in certain matters, this Court has observed that though the applications are moved by the litigating parties which should be registered on the very same day but the State is taking huge time for evaluation and register such applications. This Court in Anand Prakash Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others : Writ -C No.660 of 2025 : 2025 AHC-LKO :9888, has held as under (paragraphs 16,17, 21 and 22) :- "16. Apparently the aforesaid record as scanned shows great laxity on the part of the State-Authorities. Refusing to register as case for more than two and a half years without any justification amounts to denial of the fundamental right of securing justice from the Court. 17. This Court had the occasion to consider issues which are inflicting the revenue courts as a disease including non-registration of case in Writ Petition No. 6512 of 2024 (A-227) (Tahrunnisha and Another); 2025:AHC-LKO:2059 decided on 10th January, 2025, in W.P. No. 412 (A-227) of 2024; Mohammad Altaf Mansoor @ Chaudhary Mohammad Altaf Mansoor Vs. Sub Divisional Magisrtrate, Barabanki and others); Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10233 Writ-C No. 10297 of 2024; 2024 AHC-LKO: 81839 (Bhupendra Singh Vs. SDO, Pratapgarh and Others), Writ-C No. 10312 of 2024; 2024: AHC-LKO: 81781, Writ-C No. 3900 of 2024; 2024; AHC:LKO:52394 (DooberVs. Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others), Mohd. Ameen Vs. DDC, Bahraich; MANU/UP/4004/2024 and Avadhesh Kumar and Others Vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others; 2022 SCC Online All 636. ****** ******

21. However, for the laxity shown as well as for depriving a litigant to get legal redressal which otherwise as per the Act should have been decided on merits within a period of three months and it has taken more than two and a half year to register the case is something which this Court cannot ignore by shutting its eyes. This Court in Tahurnnisha (Supra) noticing the laxity had awarded a cost of Rs. 5,000/- with the fond hope that it might wake up the State Authorities from their slumber but it appears that the message has not gone down straight. Accordingly, in this case which reflects clearly dereliction of duty and there can be no plausible explanation as to why after receiving the petition on 18.08.2022, the matter was not registered and in whose custody this file remained gathering dust for more than 2 and a half years. Only after this Court had summoned the record that the respondent has registered the case itself reflects laxity of its officer who is the adjudicatory Authority. Refusing to register a case or not to act upon it and keeping it with itself without proceeding in accordance with law especially when the petition was in order along with deposit of fee. The Authority who is to decide the matter by not registering the case has made a litigant to suffer which is patent violation of principles of natural justice and also violates the right of a litigant to get legal redressal which is a constitutional right. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- as cost is to be paid by the State to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. It shall be open for the State Government to recover the said amount from the erring officer responsible for the debacle after holding an enquiry.

22. In view of the cases coming frequently before this Court indicating procedural lapses, this Court deems appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary, Revenue to get an audit done in all Districts to ensure that cases which are filed are promptly registered and there should not be any case which is filed and is kept with the court concerned without registration so that it can be taken to its logical conclusion. Necessary directions and exercise be undertaken and its report may also be informed to the Court as to what action has been taken and in how many districts how many such unregistered cases were found and what further action has been taken." In the aforesaid case, this Court find that it took more than three years for the State to register a case which as per law was to be decided within a period of three months. This shows the complete insensitivity of the State authorities in dealing with the revenue matter which is a cause of grave concern. In the aforesaid background, since the relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted, the petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Shukla

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that certain proceedings were initiated by the State respondent under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which came to be decided ex parte against the petitioner on 7.6.2024. It is urged that the petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings and only on 26.2.2025, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 22.2.2024 a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.1 and it is urged that in the said notice, it was stated that the petitioner was required to remove his construction within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which the State authorities would remove the said offending constructions by force. The submission is that since the said notice though dated 22.2.2024 was served on the petitioner only on 26.2.2025, accordingly the period of seven days as provided in the nature was to reckoned from the date of receipt of the notice and thus it would expire on 4.3.2025. However, without waiting for the same, on 27.3.2025, the State authorities alongwith their force removed the offending constructions which has caused irreparable injury to the petitioner. It is further urged that an application seeking recall of the order dated 7.6.2024 was filed before the respondent no.1 on 27.2.2025 but even the same was not entertained and was kept by respondent no.2 as a result the petitioner could not get a hearing on his application for recall nor he could protect his possession which has been disturbed by the State authorities prior to the date which was fixed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.14, Ram Sanehi Ghat, Barabanki seeking a decree of permanent injunction which was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. but since it was against the State authorities hence no ex parte injunction was granted and even though the date was fixed yet prior to the said date fixed, inevitable happened. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the action of the respondent State authorities in removing the offending construction is bad in the eyes of law. Having considered the written instructions, it would reveal that it has been stated therein by the Tehsildar that he has not received any notice from the Civil Court. This appears to be quite surprising and doubtful for the reason that since the suit for injunction was filed against the State authorities, the suit in itself would not have been maintainable without complying with Section 80 C.P.C. In any case, even if the suit for injunction was entertained by grating exemption to the petitioner in terms of Section 80(2) C.P.C. but the fact remains that the application for interim injunction could not have been considered without service on the State authorities and where the State is represented through the District Government Counsel (Civil), it is most unlikely that the notices were not served as stated by the Tehsildar in his written instructions which for the aforesaid reason, appears to be doubtful. This assumes significance for the reason that where an attempt is being made to dispossess/ remove the offending constructions, it would have been the duty of the State to have come up fairly, however to state in the instructions that no notice has been received indicates that an attempt is being made to misguide the court by the Tehsildar concerned. In law, there is no difference between the parties that is to say that in case, if, a private respondent does not disclose the true and correct facts, can be penalised and such an immunity can be granted to the State, is not correct. The State is equally bound to come up with true and correct facts and specially when the Court had asked by means of its order dated 5.3.2025, the State was bound to give a candid disclosure, however this Court finds that the instructions which have been given to this Court by the Tehsildar concerned, fails to abide by the aforesaid standard and it appears to have been sent in a mechanical manner without any proper verification. This act of providing misleading instructions is deprecated at the behest of the Tehsildar. Be that as it may, since as per the petitioner himself, his constructions have been removed, his application for recall has been filed which as per the State respondent has not been received by them but nevertheless this Court permits the petitioner that in case if he so chooses, he may take recourse to the provisions as may be available to him in law against an order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. In case if he chooses to move any application before the Tehsildar, he may do so afresh and the same shall be entertained on the very same day and appropriate orders would be passed after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournments as expeditiously as possible. This Court has made the aforesaid observation for the said application, for the reason that in certain matters, this Court has observed that though the applications are moved by the litigating parties which should be registered on the very same day but the State is taking huge time for evaluation and register such applications. This Court in Anand Prakash Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others : Writ -C No.660 of 2025 : 2025 AHC-LKO :9888, has held as under (paragraphs 16,17, 21 and 22) :- "16. Apparently the aforesaid record as scanned shows great laxity on the part of the State-Authorities. Refusing to register as case for more than two and a half years without any justification amounts to denial of the fundamental right of securing justice from the Court. 17. This Court had the occasion to consider issues which are inflicting the revenue courts as a disease including non-registration of case in Writ Petition No. 6512 of 2024 (A-227) (Tahrunnisha and Another); 2025:AHC-LKO:2059 decided on 10th January, 2025, in W.P. No. 412 (A-227) of 2024; Mohammad Altaf Mansoor @ Chaudhary Mohammad Altaf Mansoor Vs. Sub Divisional Magisrtrate, Barabanki and others); Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10233 Writ-C No. 10297 of 2024; 2024 AHC-LKO: 81839 (Bhupendra Singh Vs. SDO, Pratapgarh and Others), Writ-C No. 10312 of 2024; 2024: AHC-LKO: 81781, Writ-C No. 3900 of 2024; 2024; AHC:LKO:52394 (DooberVs. Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others), Mohd. Ameen Vs. DDC, Bahraich; MANU/UP/4004/2024 and Avadhesh Kumar and Others Vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others; 2022 SCC Online All 636. ****** ******

21. However, for the laxity shown as well as for depriving a litigant to get legal redressal which otherwise as per the Act should have been decided on merits within a period of three months and it has taken more than two and a half year to register the case is something which this Court cannot ignore by shutting its eyes. This Court in Tahurnnisha (Supra) noticing the laxity had awarded a cost of Rs. 5,000/- with the fond hope that it might wake up the State Authorities from their slumber but it appears that the message has not gone down straight. Accordingly, in this case which reflects clearly dereliction of duty and there can be no plausible explanation as to why after receiving the petition on 18.08.2022, the matter was not registered and in whose custody this file remained gathering dust for more than 2 and a half years. Only after this Court had summoned the record that the respondent has registered the case itself reflects laxity of its officer who is the adjudicatory Authority. Refusing to register a case or not to act upon it and keeping it with itself without proceeding in accordance with law especially when the petition was in order along with deposit of fee. The Authority who is to decide the matter by not registering the case has made a litigant to suffer which is patent violation of principles of natural justice and also violates the right of a litigant to get legal redressal which is a constitutional right. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- as cost is to be paid by the State to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. It shall be open for the State Government to recover the said amount from the erring officer responsible for the debacle after holding an enquiry.

22. In view of the cases coming frequently before this Court indicating procedural lapses, this Court deems appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary, Revenue to get an audit done in all Districts to ensure that cases which are filed are promptly registered and there should not be any case which is filed and is kept with the court concerned without registration so that it can be taken to its logical conclusion. Necessary directions and exercise be undertaken and its report may also be informed to the Court as to what action has been taken and in how many districts how many such unregistered cases were found and what further action has been taken." In the aforesaid case, this Court find that it took more than three years for the State to register a case which as per law was to be decided within a period of three months. This shows the complete insensitivity of the State authorities in dealing with the revenue matter which is a cause of grave concern. In the aforesaid background, since the relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted, the petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Shukla