Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5796 of 2019 Petitioner :- Lalta Prasad And 2 Others Respondent :- Up-Ziladhikari And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
The petitioner is permitted to mention Article 227 in place of Article 226 in the cause title of the petition. The office shall take steps to register the matter as one under Article 227 and assigned a number relating to that category.
This petition under Article 227 has been filed seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records and to issue a suitable order or direction directing the court below i.e. Up-Ziladhikari, Badlapur, District Jaunpur to expedite the hearing of the suit No. 607 under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (Lachi vs. Lalta Prasad and others) in a fixed time frame in accordance with law."
Learned counsel submits that the suit, that is a suit for division of holdings being Suit No. 607 of 2014, was filed as a suit for partition under Section 176 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Badalapur, Jaunpur since the time of its institution way back in the year 2014. He has brought to the notice of this Court some part of the order sheet which shows casual adjournments and done repeatedly between 27.04.2017 and 14.01.2018. Between those termini of dates a number of dates have been fixed, but not even a single effective order on the said dates has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to Rule 109(10) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 that governs suits for division of holdings, now filed under Section 117 of the Revenue Code. It is the said provision which would now govern this suit. The provisions of Rule 109(10) of the Revenue Code reads as under:-
"109. Preliminary and Final decrees (Section 117). - (1) ......
the suit within the period of six months and if the suit is not decided within such period, the reason shall be recorded."
The ordersheet does not show that even after enforcement of the Revenue Code and despite expiry of a period of six months, any reasons have been recorded as required by Rule 109(10) of the Code. The Sub Divisional Officer, who is in seisin of the suit is, therefore, in breach of his duty of a public nature to decide the suit within a period of six months or to record reasons for the purpose. Recording of reasons also do not licence him to linger on proceedings of the suit for a period as long as four years and more, as happened in this case.
Learned Standing Counsel has been heard in opposition to the motion to admit this petition to hearing.
Looking to the nature of the order proposed to be passed, no notice is being issued to private respondent no. 2. However, in case she feels aggrieved by this order in any manner, it would be open to her to make an application in this decided petition.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of Rule 109(10) of the Code, it is directed that the Sub Divisional Officer, Badalapur, District Jaunpur, before whom Suit No. 607 of 2014 is pending, shall proceed to decide the same within a period of four months next from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order positively and without fail.
This petition stands allowed in terms of the above order.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 BKM/-