Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3618 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Prakash Respondent :- Charan Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abrar Ahmad,Mohd. Jaid
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the Board of Revenue, Allahabad to decide his revision, being Revision No. 2334 of 2015, under Section 333 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 pending before it. The relief sought for by the petitioner reads as under:
"a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Hon'ble Board of Revenue Allahabad to decide the revision no. 2334 of 2015 under Section 333 U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act Ram Prakash versus State of U.P. and others."
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani and others v. Ali Isteba and others, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB), has considered the issue whether this Court should issue writ of mandamus directing the subordinate courts to expedite the suits or other proceedings. The Court observed that ordinarily the Court should not issue any such direction as it creates a separate class of litigants. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:
"2. We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District-Azamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the Court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expense of moving the High Court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order.
3. Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disabililty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited."
In a writ petition being Writ-B No. 3569 of 2018 (Dashrath v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh & others) this Court has held that the principle laid down in Ali Shad Usmani (supra) can be safely applied to the Revenue Courts and other Administrative Tribunals also.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no interference is called for issuance of any such direction to the Board of Revenue. It is open to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy which is available in law. Accordingly, in case the petitioner moves any expedite application before the Board of Revenue, the Court hopes and trusts that it will be considered by the Board of Revenue in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 SKT/-