UMESH CHAND GYAN CHAND RAMESH INDRA DEV Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF FOREST PRABHAGIYA VAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the matter of directions contained in order dated 11.8.2005 the text of which was that revenue courts would hold courts for 4 days in a week, and also to adhere to the court hours i.e. between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., the case was taken up on 1.5.2006 on which date, order was passed calling upon the Chairman Board of Revenue to formulate guidelines capable of enforcing obedience to the directions of the Court. The operative portion of the said order is excerpted below. In view of the above, the Chairman Board of Revenue may formulate guidelines capable of enforcing obedience to the directions of the Court and also propose action in case the direction of the Court remain un-acted upon.

(2.) On 15 May 2006, learned Chief Standing Counsel appeared to convey that Chairman Board of Revenue was not able to attend the court but at the same time, he has apprised that the Chairman has formulated requisite guidelines to enforce compliance of the order of the Court in the strictest sense. The learned Chief Standing Counsel produced copies of various orders passed by the Chairman, Board of Revenue unto this date. To begin with, he drew attention of the Court to D.O. letter dated 11.5.2006 addressed to all the Divisional Commissioners and the District Magistrates in the State of U.P. in which are encapsulated the peremptory directions to ensure that the Presiding officers manning the various revenue courts sit in court for performing judicial functions for 4 days in a week between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. This Court by means of order dated 15.5.2006 called upon the standing counsel to bring on record all the orders passed by Chairman Board of Revenue by filing affidavit of an officer of the Board of Revenue. Accordingly, an affidavit sworn by Jai Prakash Tripathi, Addl. Land Reforms commissioner, Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow has beer filed. From a perusal of affidavit and annexures thereto, it would transpire that the D.O. letter dated 11.5.2006 addressed to all the Divisional Commissioner and District Magistrates in the State of U.P. besides reiterating directions issued earlier also embodies expression of concern besides terming it objectionable that directions of the Court are not being strictly observed in compliance.

(3.) It may be recalled here that this Court had issued a writ of mandamus by means of order dated 11.8.2005 commanding the Board of Revenue to issue appropriate instructions by way of circular that during the days which may be ear-marked for performance of judicial functions the authorities may not be assigned any administrative functions except in an unforeseen emergency coming into existence Pursuant to the above directions, circular dated 6th Oct 2005 was issued addressed to all the District Magistrates prescribing therein quota of judicial work to be given in a month by different revenue authorities including District Magistrate, Addl. District Magistrate (Administration), Addl. District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Sub divisional Officer, Tahsildar and Naib Tahsildar attended with direction to abide by the schedule fixed in terms of the directions of the Court By means of another circular issued on 28.11.2005, the Board of Revenue prescribed quota for disposal of cases by the Commissioner the Addl. Commissioner (administration) and the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) besides reiterating directions contained in the earlier circular Yet another D.O. letter was issued on 14.12.2005 prescribing days of which judicial work was to be performed by revenue authorises attended with further direction to keep adherence to the days and time fixed by earlier circulars and also to quota prescribed for disposal for them in a month.