High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Umesh Singh learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.4. In pursuance of the order dated 28.11.2024, learned Standing Counsel has submitted an affidavit of the Principal Secretary Revenue indicating compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 28.11.2024 and the same is taken on record. Shri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Sadar, Raebareli is also present in person. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the respondent no.3. Certain other reliefs have also been claimed by the petitioner and for the ease of reference, the relief being sought by the petitioner are being reproduced hereinafter- (a) A writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 and 2 make appropriate enquiry of entire matter of Case No.D-201010580028, Case No.D- 202410580000867 and conduct of the respondent no.3 in the interest of justice and equity; (b) A writ, order and direction in the nature of Certiorari set aside the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure no.1) in the interest of justice and equity. (c) A writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to reconstruct/restore his previous order dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure No.2) passed in favour of petitioner. (d) A writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to maintain status quo regarding the land in question till final disposal of this petition. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the petition, it will be appropriate to notice certain facts. The dispute arose and a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R was filed by one Riyaz Ahmad wherein the petitioner was a defendant. The defendant had filed his written statement. It is stated that a fictitious compromise was filed in the said suit on 09.05.2022 wherein the counsel for the petitioner is alleged to have switched sides and colluded with the plaintiff of the suit (who are the private respondent nos.4 to 7 in this petition). It is further averred that the Court of S.D.M vide order dated 30.07.2022 accepted the said compromise, as a consequence, the suit was decided in terms of the compromise to the detriment of the defendants i.e. the petitioner herein. The petitioner moved an application for recall of the order dated 30.07.2022 along with an application seeking an ad-interim injunction which is pending before the respondent no.2. In the interim period, the private respondent nos.5 to 9 started selling the property, in parts, which compelled the petitioner to file a petition before this Court under Article 227 bearing no.3107 of 2024 (Mohd Shakeel vs District Collector Raibareli and Ors) whereby this Court vide order dated 09.07.2024 directed the application for recall to be decided most expeditiously preferably within a period of eight weeks after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is further alleged that on 07.08.2024 the Court of Additional Magistrate, Ist Sadar Raibareili is said to have allowed the recall application and it is allegation of the petitioner that the said order was pronounced in open Court but due to unavailability of the server, the said could not be uploaded online. It is further alleged that on 13.08.2024, the petitioner moved an application for taking legal action against his erstwhile counsel who is alleged to have switched sides. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is alleged that the petitioner came to know on 19.09.2024 that under undue pressure and the handiwork of his erstwhile counsel, the Court of Additional Magistrate Ist, Sadar Raibareli is alleged to have changed the order which was pronounced in the open Court on 07.08.2024, as a result at first, the Court had allowed the application of the petitioner but, subsequently, the same came to be dismissed. It is further alleged that on 22.09.2024 the petitioner approached the Court of Additional Magistrate Ist Sadar Raibareilii where as per the petitioner he found the photocopy of the earlier order dated 07.08.2024 which is said to have been pronounced in the open Court. It is also stated that the counsel for the petitioner had sent a message from his own mobile phone to the Presiding Officer of the Additional Magistrate, Ist Sadar Raibareili and raised objection regarding his conduct i.e. to say that first he had allowed the application by an order dated 07.08.2024 but later, the said order was changed and the application for recall came to be dismissed. It is with the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed the writ petition claiming the reliefs which have already been noticed hereinabove. This Court taking note of the aforesaid averments vide order dated 04.10.2024 had required the records of the said case to be sealed and be placed before the court on 15.10.2024. On 07.11.2024, when the matter was examined by the Court, it revealed that there were certain discrepancies which required clarification and the Court had summoned the Presiding Officer to explain. On 13.11.2024, the Court had passed the following order which reads as under:- "In pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 07.11.2024, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai who is holding the Court of Additional Magistrate-I, Sadar Raebareli, District Raebareli has appeared in person. The record which had been retained by the Court in a sealed cover was opened and the same was placed before the officer who has appeared in person and he was put certain questions regarding the manner in which the order sheets were drawn and the seriatim in which the orders have been passed. Upon perusal of the original record, it revealed that certain order sheets did not bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer to which it was informed by the officer in the Court that the order sheets are written appropriately since the time the officer had taken charge i.e. on 17.07.2024 and the process as provided in law has been followed. However, this is against the record, inasmuch as, two orders dated 13.08.2024 and 19.09.2024 has been placed to indicate that proper order sheets are being maintained, however, the fact remains that an application purporting to be under Section 151 C.P.C. was moved on 06.02.2024 and the entire order sheet in respect thereto have been written on the obverse side of the first page of the said application. It indicates that inter-alia other dates, the matter was listed on 12.07.2024 whereafter the next date was fixed for 19.07.2026 (six should be read as 24). It was put to the officer in person as to the fact whether he is aware of the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual which indicates that the orders have to be passed on the order sheet to which he answered in the affirmative and he also pointed out that since he has taken charge on 17.07.2024, hence, he has drawn up the order sheets on the order sheet itself as shall be evident from the order sheet of the date 13.08.2024 and 19.09.2024 respectively. It was also put to the officer that apparently the record indicated that on

12.07.2024 when the matter was listed, the next date was fixed for 19.07.2024 and he had already joined on 17.07.2024 then where is the order sheet for 19.07.2024. He after perusing the original records submits that the order of 19.07.2024 is on a separate piece of paper and that was not in seriatim with the order sheets which was right on top rather this order was in the bottom half of the file and that too on a rough kind of piece of paper which only had some scribbling said to have been in the order and it also has the signature of the officer in person. However, considering the aforesaid and from the perusal of the material on record, even if the statement of the officer in person is taken at its face value even then it indicates that the order of 19.07.2024 is on a separate piece of paper which does not appear to be the order sheet and it indicated that the next date fixed was 27.07.2024 whereafter the matter was fixed on 29.07.2024, 31.07.2024 but there is no order sheet worth its name which indicates that what happened post 19.07.2024 uptil 31.07.2024 and under what order the matter came up before the court on 13.08.2024. The officer in person had no answer to the aforesaid query and which also strengthens the discrepancy which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner including the fact that the vakalatnama filed of which the applicant has the certified copies but the same is not on record. Considering the seriousness, it was put to the officer as to bring his version on record by filing a personal affidavit to which he submits that he shall be able to do so within a period of one week from today and shall give specific reply to the allegations made in paras 10 to 20 of the writ petition. Accordingly, the record shall be retained by this Court in a sealed cover which shall be in the custody of the Senior Registrar of this Court, who shall place it before the Court on the next date fixed. In case if the officer needs to verify and peruse the record, he shall make an appropriate application to the Senior Registrar of this Court who shall permit him to inspect the records so that he is able to file his personal affidavit indicating the aforesaid discrepancies. List this matter on 28th November, 2024 on which date the officer again shall appear in person before the Court. As an interim measure, it is provided that the parties shall maintain status-quo i.e. to say that no further alienation, encumbrance in respect of the disputed property shall be made and no third party rights will be created till the next date of listing." In pursuance of the same, the Court had passed an order dated 28.11.2024 which reads as under:- "1. In pursuance of the detailed order passed by the Court dated 13.11.2024, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Sadar-Hardoi holding additional charge of Extra Magistrate (First & Second), Raebareli is also present in person and has filed his personal affidavit which is taken on record.

2. An attempt has been made by the officer in person to state that he had taken charge of the court concerned on 17.07.2024 and the case in question was listed before him for the first time on 19.07.2024.

3. It is further stated that he had passed the orders in presence of both the parties fixing the next date of hearing on 27.07.2024. It is also admitted that the said order was passed on a plain sheet of paper signed by the officer concerned and the explanation given is that as the order sheet with the barcode was not generated in the said case and could not be generated until 09.08.2024 due to technical error on the website of the Board of Revenue, hence, for the first time the order sheet with the barcode was generated on 09.08.2024.

4. A specific query was put to the officer in person as to how many cases are listed before him to which he answered that on an average it could be about 50 cases and odd, if that being so and there being a technical error on the website for which order sheet with barcode could not be generated then this would mean that it could not have been done for any number of cases in any category within this time between 19.07.2024 till 09.08.2024 i.e. in excess of 20 days.

5. There is nothing on record to suggest that any complaint was given or any such error was pointed out to the Board of Revenue or even to the District Magistrate, the superior officer of the officer in question.

6. It has also been submitted and in the affidavit it is denied that Annexure No. 2 which has been annexed by the petitioner along with the writ petition is a forged and fabricated copy and it does not bear the signatures of the officer concerned. A discrepancy is also sought to be pointed out as mentioned in paragraph 25 of the affidavit filed today by the officer concerned to show that there is an internal contradiction in the statement of the officer as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.

7. Be that as it may, in paragraph 25 of the affidavit, it is admitted by the officer concerned that he did receive the said message, however, he submits that the message which has been annexed by the petitioner with the writ petition is not the complete message rather it has been curated.

8. The officer further submits that he has the entire series of messages which have been sent by an unknown number. The officer concerned from his phone also showed the messages to this Court and it appears that the statement of the officer that it was sent by an unknown number does not give credence for the reason that upon perusing of the phone and the messages, it was shown that it has been sent by Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, Advocate.

9. Be that as it may, the very fact that such message has been sent to the officer on his number also annexing a copy of an order said to have been passed in the said case which also bears the signatures and yet no action was taken by the officer, this aspect requires investigation.

10. Sri Mohd. Imran, Advocate shall be impleaded as a party to this petition as respondent no. 10 and the learned counsel for the petitioner will do the needful.

11. Let the notice be issued to private respondent nos. 4 to 10.

12. Steps shall be taken within a week from today.

13. Let the parties file their response before the next date of listing.

14. There are conflicting averments of the respective parties in this regard and it is unfathomable that in that circumstances once an officer holding a judicial office receives such messages yet no action was taken by him till today i.e. till the filing of this personal affidavit dated 28.11.2024.

15. Apparently, this requires a deeper probe. The officer was directed to file an affidavit today itself bringing on record the entire messages from the said number received from Mohd. Imran Khan, Advocate which has been done and it is taken on record. The said supplementary personal affidavit has the entire documents and messages received from Mobile No. 7307873770 which is said to have been sent by Mohd. Imran Khan, Advocate.

16. The Principal Secretary, Revenue under his supervision shall get an enquiry done through an appropriate officer regarding the fact as to from 19.07.2024 to 09.08.2024 whether the order sheets with the barcode could not be generated as stated by the officer in his personal affidavit and this shall be confirmed in respect of all the cases which were listed before his court between 19.07.2024 till 09.08.2024.

17. A preliminary inquiry may also be done in respect of Annexure No. 2 of the writ petition as to whether it has some sanctity including prospecting the role of a lawyer or the petitioner himself who has indulged in misconduct of seeking or approaching a judicial officer after taking note of the annexures filed by the officer along with his supplementary personal affidavit filed today.

18. The report shall be placed by the next date i.e. 07th Janauary, 2025 and the officer concerned shall again appear in person.

19. List this matter on 07th January, 2025.

20.. The interim order granted on 13.11.2024 shall extended till the next date of listing.

21. The record which was retained by this Court in a sealed cover has been handed over to Sri S.K. Khare, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State." In furtherance of the said order, the matter was placed before the Court on 07.01.2025, on which date, the learned Standing counsel has filed an affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P., bringing on record the outcome of preliminary inquiry held in the matter and the same is taken on record. Taking note of the aforesaid affidavit which reflects that the District Magistrate, Raibareili held an inquiry and submitted report on 24.12.2024 which has been brought on record as Annexure A-3 with the affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Revenue dated 07.01.2025. From a perusal of the said report it appears that the inquiry was done in a very sketchy manner, apparently, with a pre meditated intention to steer the inquiry in a particular direction to shield the officer. The said report of the District Magistrate, Raibareili dated 24.12.2024, surprisingly, did not find anything alarming specially ignoring that the officer concerned had filed his affidavit before this Court on 28.11.2024 wherein a complete whatsapp chat was brought on record. If the said affidavit of the officer dated 28.11.2024 concerned is seen, it would indicate that on his number he had been receiving documents and messages from a particular lawyer and also copies of various petitions including relating to the case in question as far back as dated February, 2024. The screen shots which have been annexed with the said affidavit and is part of the chat with the said lawyer who is identified as Mohd Imran Khan, who made specific requests oblivious to it to the Presiding Officer and it is most surprising that the Presiding Officer had been for over months wherein various orders relating to the case in question including the order passed by the High Court in writ petition preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 was also sent to him including newspaper articles which related to the orders passed by the Court in the instant petition, and yet the said Presiding Officer remained silent and stated that he did not know the said number. It is equally surprising that the Principal Secretary, Revenue also taking note of the same did not find anything objectionable regarding the action and behaivour of the Presiding Officer. The judicial proceedings are of very solemn nature and the Presiding Officer reposes and exudes great respect and faith. In case, if there is a breach of faith or the conduct of the Officer is such which creates a reasonable apprehension regarding the integrity, it gives rise to several deep rooted speculation. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court finds that the inquiry which was expected to be done in light of the material available on record has failed in its purport rather it is a clear case of trying to bury the hachette. It is most surprising that where the Presiding Officer as per his own statement was not aware of the phone from who he was receiving detailed messages which related to the proceedings which were actually being pursued in his own Court. Needless to say the same was bad and contemptuous on the part of the lawyer but at the same time ignoring or tacitly accepting the messages to be entertained by the officer concerned without taking action for several months also prima facie indicates that all is not well. There can be no plausible justification that a Presiding Officer receives unsolicited messaging relating to his court works and petitions which are in his court pending adjudication and yet appropriate action is not taken to nip such mischief in the bud clearly indicates that somewhere or the other the officer had some truck with the counsel concerned. The petitioner along with writ petition has filed a copy of the order as Annexure-2 at running page nos.32 and 33 of the paper book which is the alleged order dated 07.08.2024 said to have been passed by the Additional Magistrate, Ist Raibareili wherein the parties were directed to maintain status quo which as alleged came to be changed and vide order dated 19.09.2024, his application came to be rejected has also not been dealt with. Significantly, the said order which is suspicious bears the signatures as that of the officer concerned which is available on the order, a certified copy of the order dated 19.09.2024 which has been brought on record, the same has also not been examined which also raises doubt in the manner in which the inquiry is said to have been done. The Court expresses its concerns especially the manner in which the judicial proceedings were taken forward the Court including the role and conduct of the Presiding Officer and not to mitigate the role of the lawyer concerned who was representing the petitioner. This conduct of the lawyer of the petitioner, apparently, cannot be appreciated for the reason that it could not have been done without the tacit approval of the petitioner himself. It cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge, rather, there was no way the petitioner could have got the copy of the alleged order which has been brought on record as Annexure no.2 and where there are two conflicting orders which are both signed by the officer concerned atleast some prima facie scrutiny/examination should have been made as to how separate orders pertaining to the dispute was brought into being and considering the communication between the lawyer and the officer concerned which is available on the phone of the officer as he himself has filed the same along with his own affidavit causes great concern regarding judicial propriety. All this aspect has been completely ignored which causes anguish to the Court that the proceedings which were expected to be done in a casual manner with an attempt to dilute the entire issue. This Court may not be misconstrued as to suggesting to take any action in particular against the officer but what this Court does deem desirable to observe that atleast in order to find out the truth in the matter things could have been done in a more responsible, transparent and in a fair manner. The inquiry report as filed does not satisfy this Court. The Senior Registrar of this Court shall place a copy of the affidavit filed by the officer dated 28.11.2024 and the orders passed by this Court dated 07.01.2025 including the affidavit of the Principal Secretary dated 07.01.2025 before the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to take a look into the matter and ensure that appropriate measures are taken to ensure transparency and imbibe judicial propriety. The Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. shall inquire into the matter and inform this Court regarding its outcome within eight weeks from today and for this purpose only, list this matter on 17.03.2025. This Court had already observed in its earlier order that the lawyer concerned should also be put to scrutiny as this entire episode could not have transpired without the active role of the said counsel. Be that as it may, as far as the petitioner is concerned, even his conduct cannot be said to be above Board. This Court does not appreciate the manner in which this petition has been filed as it appears that deliberate insertions and averments have been made in the petition to give it colour. Moreover, the petitioner was directed to implead the lawyer as respondent no.10 and take steps to serve respondent no.4 which has not been done. For the aforesaid reasons where the petitioner assails the order dated 19.09.2024 and the alleged order dated 07.08.2024, against which, the petitioner has adequate alternative remedy as per the provisions of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act, also that the conduct of the petitioner has not been fair, hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition at the behest of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to assail the order before the appropriate forum as per law. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Harshita HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Umesh Singh learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.4. In pursuance of the order dated 28.11.2024, learned Standing Counsel has submitted an affidavit of the Principal Secretary Revenue indicating compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 28.11.2024 and the same is taken on record. Shri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Sadar, Raebareli is also present in person. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the respondent no.3. Certain other reliefs have also been claimed by the petitioner and for the ease of reference, the relief being sought by the petitioner are being reproduced hereinafter- (a) A writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 and 2 make appropriate enquiry of entire matter of Case No.D-201010580028, Case No.D- 202410580000867 and conduct of the respondent no.3 in the interest of justice and equity; (b) A writ, order and direction in the nature of Certiorari set aside the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure no.1) in the interest of justice and equity. (c) A writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to reconstruct/restore his previous order dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure No.2) passed in favour of petitioner. (d) A writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to maintain status quo regarding the land in question till final disposal of this petition. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the petition, it will be appropriate to notice certain facts. The dispute arose and a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R was filed by one Riyaz Ahmad wherein the petitioner was a defendant. The defendant had filed his written statement. It is stated that a fictitious compromise was filed in the said suit on 09.05.2022 wherein the counsel for the petitioner is alleged to have switched sides and colluded with the plaintiff of the suit (who are the private respondent nos.4 to 7 in this petition). It is further averred that the Court of S.D.M vide order dated 30.07.2022 accepted the said compromise, as a consequence, the suit was decided in terms of the compromise to the detriment of the defendants i.e. the petitioner herein. The petitioner moved an application for recall of the order dated 30.07.2022 along with an application seeking an ad-interim injunction which is pending before the respondent no.2. In the interim period, the private respondent nos.5 to 9 started selling the property, in parts, which compelled the petitioner to file a petition before this Court under Article 227 bearing no.3107 of 2024 (Mohd Shakeel vs District Collector Raibareli and Ors) whereby this Court vide order dated 09.07.2024 directed the application for recall to be decided most expeditiously preferably within a period of eight weeks after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is further alleged that on 07.08.2024 the Court of Additional Magistrate, Ist Sadar Raibareili is said to have allowed the recall application and it is allegation of the petitioner that the said order was pronounced in open Court but due to unavailability of the server, the said could not be uploaded online. It is further alleged that on 13.08.2024, the petitioner moved an application for taking legal action against his erstwhile counsel who is alleged to have switched sides. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is alleged that the petitioner came to know on 19.09.2024 that under undue pressure and the handiwork of his erstwhile counsel, the Court of Additional Magistrate Ist, Sadar Raibareli is alleged to have changed the order which was pronounced in the open Court on 07.08.2024, as a result at first, the Court had allowed the application of the petitioner but, subsequently, the same came to be dismissed. It is further alleged that on 22.09.2024 the petitioner approached the Court of Additional Magistrate Ist Sadar Raibareilii where as per the petitioner he found the photocopy of the earlier order dated 07.08.2024 which is said to have been pronounced in the open Court. It is also stated that the counsel for the petitioner had sent a message from his own mobile phone to the Presiding Officer of the Additional Magistrate, Ist Sadar Raibareili and raised objection regarding his conduct i.e. to say that first he had allowed the application by an order dated 07.08.2024 but later, the said order was changed and the application for recall came to be dismissed. It is with the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed the writ petition claiming the reliefs which have already been noticed hereinabove. This Court taking note of the aforesaid averments vide order dated 04.10.2024 had required the records of the said case to be sealed and be placed before the court on 15.10.2024. On 07.11.2024, when the matter was examined by the Court, it revealed that there were certain discrepancies which required clarification and the Court had summoned the Presiding Officer to explain. On 13.11.2024, the Court had passed the following order which reads as under:- "In pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 07.11.2024, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai who is holding the Court of Additional Magistrate-I, Sadar Raebareli, District Raebareli has appeared in person. The record which had been retained by the Court in a sealed cover was opened and the same was placed before the officer who has appeared in person and he was put certain questions regarding the manner in which the order sheets were drawn and the seriatim in which the orders have been passed. Upon perusal of the original record, it revealed that certain order sheets did not bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer to which it was informed by the officer in the Court that the order sheets are written appropriately since the time the officer had taken charge i.e. on 17.07.2024 and the process as provided in law has been followed. However, this is against the record, inasmuch as, two orders dated 13.08.2024 and 19.09.2024 has been placed to indicate that proper order sheets are being maintained, however, the fact remains that an application purporting to be under Section 151 C.P.C. was moved on 06.02.2024 and the entire order sheet in respect thereto have been written on the obverse side of the first page of the said application. It indicates that inter-alia other dates, the matter was listed on 12.07.2024 whereafter the next date was fixed for 19.07.2026 (six should be read as 24). It was put to the officer in person as to the fact whether he is aware of the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual which indicates that the orders have to be passed on the order sheet to which he answered in the affirmative and he also pointed out that since he has taken charge on 17.07.2024, hence, he has drawn up the order sheets on the order sheet itself as shall be evident from the order sheet of the date 13.08.2024 and 19.09.2024 respectively. It was also put to the officer that apparently the record indicated that on

12.07.2024 when the matter was listed, the next date was fixed for 19.07.2024 and he had already joined on 17.07.2024 then where is the order sheet for 19.07.2024. He after perusing the original records submits that the order of 19.07.2024 is on a separate piece of paper and that was not in seriatim with the order sheets which was right on top rather this order was in the bottom half of the file and that too on a rough kind of piece of paper which only had some scribbling said to have been in the order and it also has the signature of the officer in person. However, considering the aforesaid and from the perusal of the material on record, even if the statement of the officer in person is taken at its face value even then it indicates that the order of 19.07.2024 is on a separate piece of paper which does not appear to be the order sheet and it indicated that the next date fixed was 27.07.2024 whereafter the matter was fixed on 29.07.2024, 31.07.2024 but there is no order sheet worth its name which indicates that what happened post 19.07.2024 uptil 31.07.2024 and under what order the matter came up before the court on 13.08.2024. The officer in person had no answer to the aforesaid query and which also strengthens the discrepancy which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner including the fact that the vakalatnama filed of which the applicant has the certified copies but the same is not on record. Considering the seriousness, it was put to the officer as to bring his version on record by filing a personal affidavit to which he submits that he shall be able to do so within a period of one week from today and shall give specific reply to the allegations made in paras 10 to 20 of the writ petition. Accordingly, the record shall be retained by this Court in a sealed cover which shall be in the custody of the Senior Registrar of this Court, who shall place it before the Court on the next date fixed. In case if the officer needs to verify and peruse the record, he shall make an appropriate application to the Senior Registrar of this Court who shall permit him to inspect the records so that he is able to file his personal affidavit indicating the aforesaid discrepancies. List this matter on 28th November, 2024 on which date the officer again shall appear in person before the Court. As an interim measure, it is provided that the parties shall maintain status-quo i.e. to say that no further alienation, encumbrance in respect of the disputed property shall be made and no third party rights will be created till the next date of listing." In pursuance of the same, the Court had passed an order dated 28.11.2024 which reads as under:- "1. In pursuance of the detailed order passed by the Court dated 13.11.2024, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Sadar-Hardoi holding additional charge of Extra Magistrate (First & Second), Raebareli is also present in person and has filed his personal affidavit which is taken on record.

2. An attempt has been made by the officer in person to state that he had taken charge of the court concerned on 17.07.2024 and the case in question was listed before him for the first time on 19.07.2024.

3. It is further stated that he had passed the orders in presence of both the parties fixing the next date of hearing on 27.07.2024. It is also admitted that the said order was passed on a plain sheet of paper signed by the officer concerned and the explanation given is that as the order sheet with the barcode was not generated in the said case and could not be generated until 09.08.2024 due to technical error on the website of the Board of Revenue, hence, for the first time the order sheet with the barcode was generated on 09.08.2024.

4. A specific query was put to the officer in person as to how many cases are listed before him to which he answered that on an average it could be about 50 cases and odd, if that being so and there being a technical error on the website for which order sheet with barcode could not be generated then this would mean that it could not have been done for any number of cases in any category within this time between 19.07.2024 till 09.08.2024 i.e. in excess of 20 days.

5. There is nothing on record to suggest that any complaint was given or any such error was pointed out to the Board of Revenue or even to the District Magistrate, the superior officer of the officer in question.

6. It has also been submitted and in the affidavit it is denied that Annexure No. 2 which has been annexed by the petitioner along with the writ petition is a forged and fabricated copy and it does not bear the signatures of the officer concerned. A discrepancy is also sought to be pointed out as mentioned in paragraph 25 of the affidavit filed today by the officer concerned to show that there is an internal contradiction in the statement of the officer as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition.

7. Be that as it may, in paragraph 25 of the affidavit, it is admitted by the officer concerned that he did receive the said message, however, he submits that the message which has been annexed by the petitioner with the writ petition is not the complete message rather it has been curated.

8. The officer further submits that he has the entire series of messages which have been sent by an unknown number. The officer concerned from his phone also showed the messages to this Court and it appears that the statement of the officer that it was sent by an unknown number does not give credence for the reason that upon perusing of the phone and the messages, it was shown that it has been sent by Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, Advocate.

9. Be that as it may, the very fact that such message has been sent to the officer on his number also annexing a copy of an order said to have been passed in the said case which also bears the signatures and yet no action was taken by the officer, this aspect requires investigation.

10. Sri Mohd. Imran, Advocate shall be impleaded as a party to this petition as respondent no. 10 and the learned counsel for the petitioner will do the needful.

11. Let the notice be issued to private respondent nos. 4 to 10.

12. Steps shall be taken within a week from today.

13. Let the parties file their response before the next date of listing.

14. There are conflicting averments of the respective parties in this regard and it is unfathomable that in that circumstances once an officer holding a judicial office receives such messages yet no action was taken by him till today i.e. till the filing of this personal affidavit dated 28.11.2024.

15. Apparently, this requires a deeper probe. The officer was directed to file an affidavit today itself bringing on record the entire messages from the said number received from Mohd. Imran Khan, Advocate which has been done and it is taken on record. The said supplementary personal affidavit has the entire documents and messages received from Mobile No. 7307873770 which is said to have been sent by Mohd. Imran Khan, Advocate.

16. The Principal Secretary, Revenue under his supervision shall get an enquiry done through an appropriate officer regarding the fact as to from 19.07.2024 to 09.08.2024 whether the order sheets with the barcode could not be generated as stated by the officer in his personal affidavit and this shall be confirmed in respect of all the cases which were listed before his court between 19.07.2024 till 09.08.2024.

17. A preliminary inquiry may also be done in respect of Annexure No. 2 of the writ petition as to whether it has some sanctity including prospecting the role of a lawyer or the petitioner himself who has indulged in misconduct of seeking or approaching a judicial officer after taking note of the annexures filed by the officer along with his supplementary personal affidavit filed today.

18. The report shall be placed by the next date i.e. 07th Janauary, 2025 and the officer concerned shall again appear in person.

19. List this matter on 07th January, 2025.

20.. The interim order granted on 13.11.2024 shall extended till the next date of listing.

21. The record which was retained by this Court in a sealed cover has been handed over to Sri S.K. Khare, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State." In furtherance of the said order, the matter was placed before the Court on 07.01.2025, on which date, the learned Standing counsel has filed an affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P., bringing on record the outcome of preliminary inquiry held in the matter and the same is taken on record. Taking note of the aforesaid affidavit which reflects that the District Magistrate, Raibareili held an inquiry and submitted report on 24.12.2024 which has been brought on record as Annexure A-3 with the affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Revenue dated 07.01.2025. From a perusal of the said report it appears that the inquiry was done in a very sketchy manner, apparently, with a pre meditated intention to steer the inquiry in a particular direction to shield the officer. The said report of the District Magistrate, Raibareili dated 24.12.2024, surprisingly, did not find anything alarming specially ignoring that the officer concerned had filed his affidavit before this Court on 28.11.2024 wherein a complete whatsapp chat was brought on record. If the said affidavit of the officer dated 28.11.2024 concerned is seen, it would indicate that on his number he had been receiving documents and messages from a particular lawyer and also copies of various petitions including relating to the case in question as far back as dated February, 2024. The screen shots which have been annexed with the said affidavit and is part of the chat with the said lawyer who is identified as Mohd Imran Khan, who made specific requests oblivious to it to the Presiding Officer and it is most surprising that the Presiding Officer had been for over months wherein various orders relating to the case in question including the order passed by the High Court in writ petition preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 was also sent to him including newspaper articles which related to the orders passed by the Court in the instant petition, and yet the said Presiding Officer remained silent and stated that he did not know the said number. It is equally surprising that the Principal Secretary, Revenue also taking note of the same did not find anything objectionable regarding the action and behaivour of the Presiding Officer. The judicial proceedings are of very solemn nature and the Presiding Officer reposes and exudes great respect and faith. In case, if there is a breach of faith or the conduct of the Officer is such which creates a reasonable apprehension regarding the integrity, it gives rise to several deep rooted speculation. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court finds that the inquiry which was expected to be done in light of the material available on record has failed in its purport rather it is a clear case of trying to bury the hachette. It is most surprising that where the Presiding Officer as per his own statement was not aware of the phone from who he was receiving detailed messages which related to the proceedings which were actually being pursued in his own Court. Needless to say the same was bad and contemptuous on the part of the lawyer but at the same time ignoring or tacitly accepting the messages to be entertained by the officer concerned without taking action for several months also prima facie indicates that all is not well. There can be no plausible justification that a Presiding Officer receives unsolicited messaging relating to his court works and petitions which are in his court pending adjudication and yet appropriate action is not taken to nip such mischief in the bud clearly indicates that somewhere or the other the officer had some truck with the counsel concerned. The petitioner along with writ petition has filed a copy of the order as Annexure-2 at running page nos.32 and 33 of the paper book which is the alleged order dated 07.08.2024 said to have been passed by the Additional Magistrate, Ist Raibareili wherein the parties were directed to maintain status quo which as alleged came to be changed and vide order dated 19.09.2024, his application came to be rejected has also not been dealt with. Significantly, the said order which is suspicious bears the signatures as that of the officer concerned which is available on the order, a certified copy of the order dated 19.09.2024 which has been brought on record, the same has also not been examined which also raises doubt in the manner in which the inquiry is said to have been done. The Court expresses its concerns especially the manner in which the judicial proceedings were taken forward the Court including the role and conduct of the Presiding Officer and not to mitigate the role of the lawyer concerned who was representing the petitioner. This conduct of the lawyer of the petitioner, apparently, cannot be appreciated for the reason that it could not have been done without the tacit approval of the petitioner himself. It cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge, rather, there was no way the petitioner could have got the copy of the alleged order which has been brought on record as Annexure no.2 and where there are two conflicting orders which are both signed by the officer concerned atleast some prima facie scrutiny/examination should have been made as to how separate orders pertaining to the dispute was brought into being and considering the communication between the lawyer and the officer concerned which is available on the phone of the officer as he himself has filed the same along with his own affidavit causes great concern regarding judicial propriety. All this aspect has been completely ignored which causes anguish to the Court that the proceedings which were expected to be done in a casual manner with an attempt to dilute the entire issue. This Court may not be misconstrued as to suggesting to take any action in particular against the officer but what this Court does deem desirable to observe that atleast in order to find out the truth in the matter things could have been done in a more responsible, transparent and in a fair manner. The inquiry report as filed does not satisfy this Court. The Senior Registrar of this Court shall place a copy of the affidavit filed by the officer dated 28.11.2024 and the orders passed by this Court dated 07.01.2025 including the affidavit of the Principal Secretary dated 07.01.2025 before the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to take a look into the matter and ensure that appropriate measures are taken to ensure transparency and imbibe judicial propriety. The Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. shall inquire into the matter and inform this Court regarding its outcome within eight weeks from today and for this purpose only, list this matter on 17.03.2025. This Court had already observed in its earlier order that the lawyer concerned should also be put to scrutiny as this entire episode could not have transpired without the active role of the said counsel. Be that as it may, as far as the petitioner is concerned, even his conduct cannot be said to be above Board. This Court does not appreciate the manner in which this petition has been filed as it appears that deliberate insertions and averments have been made in the petition to give it colour. Moreover, the petitioner was directed to implead the lawyer as respondent no.10 and take steps to serve respondent no.4 which has not been done. For the aforesaid reasons where the petitioner assails the order dated 19.09.2024 and the alleged order dated 07.08.2024, against which, the petitioner has adequate alternative remedy as per the provisions of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act, also that the conduct of the petitioner has not been fair, hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition at the behest of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to assail the order before the appropriate forum as per law. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Harshita HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench