Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9475 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Rajeshwari Soni Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has filed an application dated 14.09.2018 for recall of the order dated 11.09.2018 passed in Suit No.RST/07491/2016 (Smt. Rajeshwari Soni Vs. Prabhakar Jaiswal) bearing Compurized Suit No.T201617140107491 under Section 34/35 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901. The restoration application has not been decided till date.
Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no reason for the inordinate delay in deciding the aforesaid restoration application. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the restoration application dated 14.09.2018 filed by the petitioner may be decided within the stipulated period of time.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities are under an obligation of law to make efforts to decide the restoration application dated 14.09.2018 filed by the petitioner within a reasonable period of time.
A perusal of the order-sheet shows that there is no good cause for the inordinate delay in deciding the said restoration application.
No lis can remain pending indefinitely before a court of law. Prolonged pendency of a lis without good cause may lead to miscarriage of justice.
All the contesting parties have appeared before the learned court below. No useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court.
The matter is remitted to the learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti.
A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil- Harraiya, District-Basti, to execute the following directions:
(I) The learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti, shall decide the restoration application dated 14.09.2018 filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 11.09.2018 passed in Suit No.RST/07491/2016 (Smt. Rajeshwari Soni Vs. Prabhakar Jaiswal) bearing Compurized Suit No.T201617140107491 under Section 34/35 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, within a period of four months in accordance with law from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the website of High Court, Allahabad. The authority/official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(II) All parties to the lis shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed.
(III) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti.
(IV) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti, or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil- Harraiya, District-Basti, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.
(V) The learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil- Harraiya, District-Basti, shall give short dates in the proceedings.
(VI) The learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil- Harraiya, District-Basti, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.
(VII) In case any adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti, shall impose costs not below Rs.500/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.
(VIII) If necessary, the learned court below/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Harraiya, District-Basti, shall proceed with the hearing of the matter on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of four months to decide the application is strictly adhered to.
(IX) This order is being passed when the threat of Covid-19 pandemic still exists. In case the court proceedings are held up due to Covid-19 outbreak, the lost working days shall be adjusted and the stipulated period of four months shall accordingly be enhanced. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Ashish Tripathi