SARJU DEVI Vs. TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL-GAURIGANJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner herein seek expeditious disposal of mutation proceedings bearing No. T-201704710102665; Sarju Devi Vs. Maniram and Anr. under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 pending since 2010. However, the order sheets reveal that in the present case out of as many as 21 dates the lawyers had abstained from work en-masse on 11 dates which is obviously one of the reasons for non-disposal of the cases.

(3.) This Court in number of similar matters has passed various orders. Such orders have been passed in Writ Petition No. 8784(M/S) of 2019 on 30.03.2019, Writ Petition No. 8902(M/S) of 2019 dated 01.04.2019 and Writ Petition No. 19831(M/S) of 2019 on 22.07.2019 wherein this Court has expressed its concern and anxiety over such resolutions passed by the revenue bar associations on account of which lawyers have abstained from work en-mass repeatedly and continuously. In some cases after perusing the order sheet the court found out that out of 22 dates on 19 dates the lawyers had abstained from work, in another case it was found that out of 45 dates on 42 dates the lawyers had abstained from work. This phenomenon has assumed the proportion of an epidemic as far as the revenue bar associations in the Tehsil and sub divisions are concerned where the cases of peasants and agriculturists are taken up who are obviously put to great hardships.