Shyam Bihari v. State of U.P. & others', filed by the

Petitioner :- Shyam Bihari Srivastava @ Shyam Bihari Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Priya Swapnil,Mohan Singh,Pushpila Bisht Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Ms. Jai Priya Swapnil for private respondent no. 4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner claims the following main reliefs:- "(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the part of order dated 13.02.2025 by which once the Opposite Party No.1 admitted the Appeal No. 273/2025, Computerized Case No. C202504000000273, 'Shyam Bihari Vs State of U.P. & others', filed by the petitioner U/S 331(2) of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act, 1950, before the Opposite Party No.1 but the stay application was rejected, in most illegal and arbitrary manner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding and directing the Opposite Parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question, during pendency of the Appeal No. 273/2025, Computerized Case No. C202504000000273, 'Shyam Bihari Vs State of UP. & others'." The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was initiated which came to be decided and further the partition scheme came to be accepted by the court wherein it is alleged by the petitioner that he was not adequately provided with an opportunity to contest the proceedings on merit and by means of order dated 28.09.2022, the final decree proceedings was finalized. It is also the case of the petitioner that being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 23.01.2025 seeking setting aside of the order dated 28.09.2022 and 08.01.2022. It is further stated that the said appeal was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1 while entertaining the appeal of the petitioner, condoned the delay but at the same time rejected the application of the petitioner seeking interim relief on the ground that the petitioner could not establish occurrence of irreparable injury. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the appeal was admitted, it was incumbent upon the concerned Authorities to have provided for the protection of the property in question failing which the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury, moreso when the order impugned in the appeal was passed behind the back of the petitioner. It is further submitted that while rejecting the application for interim relief, the respondent no. 1 did not apply its judicial mind and in a cursory manner without giving any reasons, the application for interim relief was rejected. In such circumstances, it has been urged that the order impugned in so far as it rejected the application for interim relief is concerned cannot be sustained. Considering the averment made in paragraph 22 of the petition, the Court had called for the records. The Court has further examined the records and from the perusal thereof, it indicates that the order sheet post 29.01.2021 has not been properly maintained, inasmuch as, while passing the order on 29.01.2021, the restoration application was allowed, the case was restored to its original number and certain queries and directions were put to the plaintiffs fixing 24.02.2021. On the next date i.e. 24.02.2021, the Court directed the Tehsildar to prepare the partition scheme fixing 25.03.2021, however, from the perusal of the original records which has been placed before the Court, there is no order sheet of 25.03.2024 rather the next order sheet which has been placed on record is dated 30th March, 2022. Apparently, for a year, there is nothing to indicate what transpired in the proceedings as there is no order sheet which is a cause of concern. Be that as it may, the manner in which the order sheets have been prepared speaks volume of the way, the proceedings are conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. However, considering the instant matter which is confined to rejection of the application of interim relief by the court concerned, this Court finds that it is quite correct to state that there is no application of judicial mind while rejecting the application for interim relief of the petitioner. Ms. Jaipriya, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no. 4 candidly submitted that she could not defend the order in so far as it rejected the application for interim relief without disclosing any reason, however, she has pointed out that even otherwise the order dated 13.02.2025 is without jurisdiction and the private respondent no. 4 is also aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2025 and would have challenged the said order but since the petitioner has already come forward, accordingly, the private respondent did not have ample time but nevertheless it has been submitted that in an appeal which was barred by about 3 years and odd, no notices were issued to the private respondents for seeking condonation of delay and while entertaining the appeal, the delay has been condoned which is also a jurisdictional error and to that extent, it is submitted that the order dated 13.02.2025, while condoning the delay, without issuing notices to the private respondents in the appeal is also bad in the eyes of law. Sri Shobhnath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the appeal was time barred. He also does not dispute that no notices were issued and on the first date itself the delay was condoned and though the appeal was admitted but the application for interim relief was rejected. This Court finds that the manner in which the appeal has been entertained is also contrary to law as without issuing any notice on the application for condonation of delay, the delay could not have been condoned. The order dated 13.02.2025 apparently cannot be sustained. Moreover, if the petition is entertained s per the relief claimed by the petitioner alone then by allowing the writ petition, this Court would be affirming a part of the order dated 13.02.2025 in so far as it condoned the delay without notice to the respondent which would be illegal. The said order dated 13.02.2025 is set aside. The appeal shall stand restored on the board of the respondent no. 1 where the Appellate Court shall issue notices to all the private respondents on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, except the respondent no. 4 herein namely Shyam Prakash as he has already put in appearance before this Court and he shall not be entitled to any fresh notice before the Appellate Court. It will be open for the respondents in the appeal to file their objections under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the same shall be decided first and if the Appellate Court finds favour in condoning the delay, thereafter the application for interim relief shall be considered on its own merit after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Before parting, this Court finds that the manner in which the record has been presented before this Court relating to the the proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950 are quite alarming. This Court has already noticed this aspect of the matter and has raised red flags plaguing the Revenue Courts in several of its decisions i.e. 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, Anand Prakash Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-C No. 660 of 2025; 2025:AHC-LKO:9888 but still there has been no improvement. It will be appropriate for the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow to look into the matter in light of the several decisions passed by this Court highlighting the manner in which the revenue proceedings are being taken forward and shall hold an exercise to sensitize and inform the judicial officers and if required to train them as to how the proceedings are to be held including maintaining ordersheets, listing of orders inter alia as the revenue proceedings are of judicial nature and are susceptible to appeals before higher forum. Non-compliances of such nature gives rise to skepticism as it undermines the judicial sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings and needless to say gives rise to arbitrariness which is an anathema to the rule of law. It is expected that the Authorities concerned at the appropriate level shall take note of the repeated violations and take remedial measures and inform the Court of the measures so taken by the ends of 8 weeks. For this limited purpose, the matter shall be listed before this Court on 07th May, 2025. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the plea of either of the parties on merits and the order has been set aside solely on the ground of illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Court in condonation of delay of a time barred appeal without issuing notice to the concerned respondents and rejecting the application for interim listing by a non-speaking order. {See Writ-B No. 357 of 2022 (Shatrodhan and Others Vs. SOC, Lucknow and others), decided on 03.06.2022. and Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs and another vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another, (2004) 7 SCC 431. } The original records produced today before the Court has been handed over to the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Asheesh/- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Shyam Bihari Srivastava @ Shyam Bihari Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Priya Swapnil,Mohan Singh,Pushpila Bisht Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Ms. Jai Priya Swapnil for private respondent no. 4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner claims the following main reliefs:- "(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the part of order dated 13.02.2025 by which once the Opposite Party No.1 admitted the Appeal No. 273/2025, Computerized Case No. C202504000000273, 'Shyam Bihari Vs State of U.P. & others', filed by the petitioner U/S 331(2) of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act, 1950, before the Opposite Party No.1 but the stay application was rejected, in most illegal and arbitrary manner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding and directing the Opposite Parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question, during pendency of the Appeal No. 273/2025, Computerized Case No. C202504000000273, 'Shyam Bihari Vs State of UP. & others'." The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was initiated which came to be decided and further the partition scheme came to be accepted by the court wherein it is alleged by the petitioner that he was not adequately provided with an opportunity to contest the proceedings on merit and by means of order dated 28.09.2022, the final decree proceedings was finalized. It is also the case of the petitioner that being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 23.01.2025 seeking setting aside of the order dated 28.09.2022 and 08.01.2022. It is further stated that the said appeal was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1 while entertaining the appeal of the petitioner, condoned the delay but at the same time rejected the application of the petitioner seeking interim relief on the ground that the petitioner could not establish occurrence of irreparable injury. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the appeal was admitted, it was incumbent upon the concerned Authorities to have provided for the protection of the property in question failing which the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury, moreso when the order impugned in the appeal was passed behind the back of the petitioner. It is further submitted that while rejecting the application for interim relief, the respondent no. 1 did not apply its judicial mind and in a cursory manner without giving any reasons, the application for interim relief was rejected. In such circumstances, it has been urged that the order impugned in so far as it rejected the application for interim relief is concerned cannot be sustained. Considering the averment made in paragraph 22 of the petition, the Court had called for the records. The Court has further examined the records and from the perusal thereof, it indicates that the order sheet post 29.01.2021 has not been properly maintained, inasmuch as, while passing the order on 29.01.2021, the restoration application was allowed, the case was restored to its original number and certain queries and directions were put to the plaintiffs fixing 24.02.2021. On the next date i.e. 24.02.2021, the Court directed the Tehsildar to prepare the partition scheme fixing 25.03.2021, however, from the perusal of the original records which has been placed before the Court, there is no order sheet of 25.03.2024 rather the next order sheet which has been placed on record is dated 30th March, 2022. Apparently, for a year, there is nothing to indicate what transpired in the proceedings as there is no order sheet which is a cause of concern. Be that as it may, the manner in which the order sheets have been prepared speaks volume of the way, the proceedings are conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. However, considering the instant matter which is confined to rejection of the application of interim relief by the court concerned, this Court finds that it is quite correct to state that there is no application of judicial mind while rejecting the application for interim relief of the petitioner. Ms. Jaipriya, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no. 4 candidly submitted that she could not defend the order in so far as it rejected the application for interim relief without disclosing any reason, however, she has pointed out that even otherwise the order dated 13.02.2025 is without jurisdiction and the private respondent no. 4 is also aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2025 and would have challenged the said order but since the petitioner has already come forward, accordingly, the private respondent did not have ample time but nevertheless it has been submitted that in an appeal which was barred by about 3 years and odd, no notices were issued to the private respondents for seeking condonation of delay and while entertaining the appeal, the delay has been condoned which is also a jurisdictional error and to that extent, it is submitted that the order dated 13.02.2025, while condoning the delay, without issuing notices to the private respondents in the appeal is also bad in the eyes of law. Sri Shobhnath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the appeal was time barred. He also does not dispute that no notices were issued and on the first date itself the delay was condoned and though the appeal was admitted but the application for interim relief was rejected. This Court finds that the manner in which the appeal has been entertained is also contrary to law as without issuing any notice on the application for condonation of delay, the delay could not have been condoned. The order dated 13.02.2025 apparently cannot be sustained. Moreover, if the petition is entertained s per the relief claimed by the petitioner alone then by allowing the writ petition, this Court would be affirming a part of the order dated 13.02.2025 in so far as it condoned the delay without notice to the respondent which would be illegal. The said order dated 13.02.2025 is set aside. The appeal shall stand restored on the board of the respondent no. 1 where the Appellate Court shall issue notices to all the private respondents on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, except the respondent no. 4 herein namely Shyam Prakash as he has already put in appearance before this Court and he shall not be entitled to any fresh notice before the Appellate Court. It will be open for the respondents in the appeal to file their objections under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the same shall be decided first and if the Appellate Court finds favour in condoning the delay, thereafter the application for interim relief shall be considered on its own merit after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Before parting, this Court finds that the manner in which the record has been presented before this Court relating to the the proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950 are quite alarming. This Court has already noticed this aspect of the matter and has raised red flags plaguing the Revenue Courts in several of its decisions i.e. 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, Anand Prakash Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-C No. 660 of 2025; 2025:AHC-LKO:9888 but still there has been no improvement. It will be appropriate for the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow to look into the matter in light of the several decisions passed by this Court highlighting the manner in which the revenue proceedings are being taken forward and shall hold an exercise to sensitize and inform the judicial officers and if required to train them as to how the proceedings are to be held including maintaining ordersheets, listing of orders inter alia as the revenue proceedings are of judicial nature and are susceptible to appeals before higher forum. Non-compliances of such nature gives rise to skepticism as it undermines the judicial sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings and needless to say gives rise to arbitrariness which is an anathema to the rule of law. It is expected that the Authorities concerned at the appropriate level shall take note of the repeated violations and take remedial measures and inform the Court of the measures so taken by the ends of 8 weeks. For this limited purpose, the matter shall be listed before this Court on 07th May, 2025. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the plea of either of the parties on merits and the order has been set aside solely on the ground of illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Court in condonation of delay of a time barred appeal without issuing notice to the concerned respondents and rejecting the application for interim listing by a non-speaking order. {See Writ-B No. 357 of 2022 (Shatrodhan and Others Vs. SOC, Lucknow and others), decided on 03.06.2022. and Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs and another vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and another, (2004) 7 SCC 431. } The original records produced today before the Court has been handed over to the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Asheesh/- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench