Sarkari Van Vibhag v. Ashok Kumar Gaud

1. Heard Sri Onkar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for all the respondents.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an application under Section 38 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code had been preferred by Divisional Forest Officer, Range Murtiha, Katarniaghat, Wild Life Division, Bahraich with regard to the property situated on gata No.148 area 0.864 hectare which is recorded in the name of the petitioner. It has been submitted that there is a boundary dispute with the Forest Department wherein the Forest Department is claiming certain portion of the land of the petitioner as forest land and the same is being opposed by the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted that the said dispute under Section 38 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code is pending before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsildar, Tehsil Mihipurwa (Motipur), District Bahraich since 11.9.2020. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is being adjourned due to non - cooperation of opposite party No.3 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer due to which the matter is pending and in the aforesaid circumstances has prayed for following reliefs:- "I. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS to direct the opposite party no.3 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Range- Murtiha, Katarniaghat, Wild Life Division, Bahraich, appropriate/effective steps in the Case No.2449/2023 computer case no.T202308150602449 "Sarkari Van Vibhag vs. Ashok Kumar Gaud" filed under section section 38 (1) of U.P., Revenue Code, 2006, pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mihipurwa, Bahraich as directed in letter no.98/reader-vaad pairvi/(dhara) 38/2024 dated 12/06/2024 and letter no.223 dated 19/06/2025 annexed as Annexure No.6 and Annexure No.12 to this writ petition. II. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS to direct the opposite party no. 3 to take appropriate measures, ensuring the 2 WRIC No. 7703 of 2025 proper pairvi of the case as directed in letter dated 12/06/2024 and 19/06/2025 issued by the opposite party no.2 and to direct the opposite party no.2 to take appropriate/effective action in order to decide the Case No.2449/2023 Computer Case No.T202308150602449 "Sarkari Van Vibhag Vs. Ashok Kumar Gaud" filed under section section 38 (1)of U.P. Revenue Code, 206, at the earliest....."

4. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner shall stand redressed in case opposite party No.2 is directed to decide the proceedings under Section 38 (1) in the Case No.2449/2023 computer case no.T202308150602449 "Sarkari Van Vibhag vs. Ashok Kumar Gaud" expeditiously.

5. Considering the prayer made by the petitioner, it is noticed that the petitioner has also sought a direction to opposite party No.3, who is the applicant in the said case, to cooperate in the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mihipurwa, District Bahraich. Considering the aforesaid prayer, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court will not pass any orders with regard to manner of conduct of any party to the judicial proceeding in such proceeding. In judicial proceedings, even if, one of the parties is State in exercise of the powers under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has no power to interfere in the proceedings before a court or tribunal below and would refrain from passing any direction or orders to any of the contesting parties in a ligation before any of the authorities which may effect the outcome of the litigators. Such interference may directly affect the rights of the parties and, therefore, interference can only be made with any orders passed by any authority which is subordinate to High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution but no such direction can be issued to the parties to the litigation.

6. The doctrine of dominus litis recognizes that the party initiating proceedings has the discretion to regulate, pursue or withdraw the lis in the manner he deems fit, subject to statutory limitation. The Court cannot compel a party to prosecute or defend a matter in a particular way in judicial proceedings as this would amount to usurping the rights of the litigant to prosecute and conduct the litigation as per his convenience and choice. Equally, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court's jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and confined to examining the legality or propriety of orders passed by subordinate courts and tribunals. It does not empower this Court to dictate the manner in which parties should conduct themselves in pending proceedings. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner seeking a direction to the opposite party No.3, namely, The Divisional Forest Officer, to cooperate in the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, cannot be entertained and is rejected.

7. With regard to subsequent prayer made by the petitioner for expeditious 3 WRIC No. 7703 of 2025 disposal of the application, we find that U.P. Revenue Code itself provides time limit for deciding such application. Para 479 of the Revenue Court Manual provides as under: "Reason for delay in disposal- If the period for concluding a proceeding has not been fixed in the Code or the Rules; the court shall endeavour to conclude the proceeding within a period of ninety days and if the proceeding is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded.".

8. Since, the matter is pending for more than five years and, therefore, a case for limited interference is made out.

9. In view of the above, opposite party No.2 is directed to consider and decide the case expeditiously, say within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of the is order is placed before him, in accordance with law.

10. The parties to the said matter undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the court concerned and not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

11. With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Onkar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for all the respondents.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an application under Section 38 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code had been preferred by Divisional Forest Officer, Range Murtiha, Katarniaghat, Wild Life Division, Bahraich with regard to the property situated on gata No.148 area 0.864 hectare which is recorded in the name of the petitioner. It has been submitted that there is a boundary dispute with the Forest Department wherein the Forest Department is claiming certain portion of the land of the petitioner as forest land and the same is being opposed by the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted that the said dispute under Section 38 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code is pending before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsildar, Tehsil Mihipurwa (Motipur), District Bahraich since 11.9.2020. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is being adjourned due to non - cooperation of opposite party No.3 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer due to which the matter is pending and in the aforesaid circumstances has prayed for following reliefs:- "I. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS to direct the opposite party no.3 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Range- Murtiha, Katarniaghat, Wild Life Division, Bahraich, appropriate/effective steps in the Case No.2449/2023 computer case no.T202308150602449 "Sarkari Van Vibhag vs. Ashok Kumar Gaud" filed under section section 38 (1) of U.P., Revenue Code, 2006, pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mihipurwa, Bahraich as directed in letter no.98/reader-vaad pairvi/(dhara) 38/2024 dated 12/06/2024 and letter no.223 dated 19/06/2025 annexed as Annexure No.6 and Annexure No.12 to this writ petition. II. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS to direct the opposite party no. 3 to take appropriate measures, ensuring the 2 WRIC No. 7703 of 2025 proper pairvi of the case as directed in letter dated 12/06/2024 and 19/06/2025 issued by the opposite party no.2 and to direct the opposite party no.2 to take appropriate/effective action in order to decide the Case No.2449/2023 Computer Case No.T202308150602449 "Sarkari Van Vibhag Vs. Ashok Kumar Gaud" filed under section section 38 (1)of U.P. Revenue Code, 206, at the earliest....."

4. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner shall stand redressed in case opposite party No.2 is directed to decide the proceedings under Section 38 (1) in the Case No.2449/2023 computer case no.T202308150602449 "Sarkari Van Vibhag vs. Ashok Kumar Gaud" expeditiously.

5. Considering the prayer made by the petitioner, it is noticed that the petitioner has also sought a direction to opposite party No.3, who is the applicant in the said case, to cooperate in the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mihipurwa, District Bahraich. Considering the aforesaid prayer, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court will not pass any orders with regard to manner of conduct of any party to the judicial proceeding in such proceeding. In judicial proceedings, even if, one of the parties is State in exercise of the powers under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has no power to interfere in the proceedings before a court or tribunal below and would refrain from passing any direction or orders to any of the contesting parties in a ligation before any of the authorities which may effect the outcome of the litigators. Such interference may directly affect the rights of the parties and, therefore, interference can only be made with any orders passed by any authority which is subordinate to High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution but no such direction can be issued to the parties to the litigation.

6. The doctrine of dominus litis recognizes that the party initiating proceedings has the discretion to regulate, pursue or withdraw the lis in the manner he deems fit, subject to statutory limitation. The Court cannot compel a party to prosecute or defend a matter in a particular way in judicial proceedings as this would amount to usurping the rights of the litigant to prosecute and conduct the litigation as per his convenience and choice. Equally, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court's jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and confined to examining the legality or propriety of orders passed by subordinate courts and tribunals. It does not empower this Court to dictate the manner in which parties should conduct themselves in pending proceedings. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner seeking a direction to the opposite party No.3, namely, The Divisional Forest Officer, to cooperate in the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, cannot be entertained and is rejected.

7. With regard to subsequent prayer made by the petitioner for expeditious 3 WRIC No. 7703 of 2025 disposal of the application, we find that U.P. Revenue Code itself provides time limit for deciding such application. Para 479 of the Revenue Court Manual provides as under: "Reason for delay in disposal- If the period for concluding a proceeding has not been fixed in the Code or the Rules; the court shall endeavour to conclude the proceeding within a period of ninety days and if the proceeding is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded.".

8. Since, the matter is pending for more than five years and, therefore, a case for limited interference is made out.

9. In view of the above, opposite party No.2 is directed to consider and decide the case expeditiously, say within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of the is order is placed before him, in accordance with law.

10. The parties to the said matter undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the court concerned and not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

11. With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench