SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 26.7.2005 passed in revision no. 73/02-03 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation, Mohammdabad, a disconcerting feature forced itself on my notice that the original record containing original document of the petitioner had been missing since the year 1983 and further that the case has been lingering decision for the last 25 years and also noticing that despite peremptory direction of the Court embodied in writ petition No. 883 of 2004 to reconstruct the record and to expedite disposal of the case, no headway had been made to the detriment of the interest of the petitioner, it was directed by means of order dated 6.3.2006that Sri D.S.Pathak, Deputy Director Consolidation Farukhabad shall put in appearance before this Court on 28th March 2006 alongwith the record of case no. 5152 decided on 25.6.1983.

(2.) Sarv/Sri D.S.Pathak, Deputy Director Consolidation, Farukhabad, Santosh Kumar Singh Ass. Settlement Officer Consolidation and Satya Prakash Sachan, Consolidation officer Farukhabad are present in Court today and produced the record. As stated supra, the original record has been missing since the year 1983 and from a perusal of the record, it would transpire that the petitioner has been running from pillar to post but to no avail. The record is revealing that in appeal no. 390 filed under section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act by the mother of the petitioner before the Settlement Officer Consolidation against the alleged forged order dated 25.6.1983, the then Settlement Officer while remanding the matter had ordered reconstruction of the record and disposal of the matter by means of order dated 22.7.1997. The revision preferred against the said order of Settlement Officer Consolidation was also dismissed vide order dated 28.3.2003. No efforts seem to have been made to trace out the record and therefore, it is alleged that petitioner preferred objection under section 9 A (2) before the Consolidation Officer which it would appear came to be dismissed at the threshold by means of order dated 5.11.2003 allegedly on hyper-technical view that the case was already pending. It would also appear from the record that an unsigned application dated 18.2.2004 came to be made before the District Judge Farukhabad alongwith the original record of case no. 1552 by one Ram Prakash son of Manga Bihari Lal who was once a reader in the court of Consolidation officer and had since breathed his last, the text of which is that while rummaging through the papers of his deceased father Magan Bihari Lal, his hands alighted on the original record. The aforesaid officer also apprised the Court that a First Information Report has already bee lodged in the matter.

(3.) When the Court put a poser to the aforesaid orders as to how the judicial record was removed by the Reader to his residence, they through learned Standing Counsel unfolded the entire sordid and pitiable aspect of the working conditions of the Courts. To be precise, he informed the Court that there remains hardly any space for coping with the staggering case records further revealing that there is no pending record room and hence the files are hoarded up in different courts. It was also pointed out that though the revenue courts are performing judicial functions, there is no adequate arrangement such as library with a view to updating their knowledge on latest rulings and they have to manage the affairs with the minimum available law book such as bare Acts, U.P.C.H.Act, Consolidation of Holdings Rules and Consolidation instructions and they have no access to any journals and all relevant law books which are necessary for effective adjudication of disputes.