Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4101 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shakuntala And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Department Of Revenue And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shree Prakash Giri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking amongst other the relief for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Consolidation Officer, the fourth respondent, to decide his objection. The principal relief sought for by the petitioners reads as under:
"A. Writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus commanding Consolidation Officer Katghara District Jaunpur/ Respondent no.-4 to decide objection of petitioners filed under section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953."
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 same issue regarding issuance of direction to the subordinate courts for expeditious hearing of a case pending before it. The Division Bench held that ordinarily the High Court should not issue a writ of mandamus directing the subordinate Courts or the judicial officers to expedite the matter and decide it as such type of directions create a separate class of litigants and the ordinary and poor litigants, who cannot afford to come to this Court for such a direction, are made to suffer as their cases are left to be decided in normal course. 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."
The same principle has been applied by this Court in respect of the Revenue Courts, Tribunals and other authorities also.
In view of the above, no interference is called for in the present writ petition.
The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is a complete Code in itself. Hence, it is open to the petitioners to take recourse to the provisions of the said Act. The Court hopes and trusts that in case any such application is moved, the concerned authority shall pass the appropriate order in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 SKT/-