Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Umesh Chand & Others v. Sub Divisional Officer & Others - WRIT - C No. 54992 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 9657 (16 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court no. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54992 of 2005

Umesh Chand and others................................................Petitioners


Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Nichlaul District Maharajganj and others..................................................................................Respondents.

Hon. S.N.Srivastava, J.

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."

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 been 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.

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 on which judicial work was to be performed by revenue authorities 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.

It would thus appear that the Board of Revenue has issued comprehensive directions from time to time in observance of the orders of this Court. However, considering that the directions about holding courts for 4 days and adhering to the court hours between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. are not being strictly followed as would be manifested from the D.Os. and circulars issued by the Board of Revenue, I feel called to call upon the Board of Revenue to collect details of the disposal month-wise in the shape of monthly statements for the period from Sept 2005 upto June 2006 decided by subordinate revenue courts on merits, to be precise, from Divisional commissioner for the works performed by Addl. Commissioner (Administration) and Addl. Commissioner ( Revenue) and from District Magistrate for the works[ performed by the District Magistrates themselves including Addl. District Magistrate, S.D.Os, Tahsildar and Naib Tahsildar. The details so received may be short-listed by Board of Revenue for onward transmission and perusal of the Court.  

I have searched various circulars/D.Os containing various directions issued in compliance of the orders of the Court for direction if any, to the Presiding officers to wear proper dress while sitting in Court performing judicial functions. Since these presiding officers are performing judicial functions, it is incumbent upon them to wear proper dress besides observing in compliance the various other norms prescribed there-for. A direction to this effect may be issued to all the Presiding officers manning the revenue courts in the State.

Since further details have been sought from the Board of Revenue as enumerated above, with a view to monitoring  compliance with the directions of the Court, list this matter on Sept 11,2006.

Office is directed to supply certified copy of this order to Sri Sanjeev Goswami, learned Standing counsel High Court Allahabad within a week from today.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.