Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4115 of 2018 Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Pandey,Diwakar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondent authorities to carry out mutation in the revenue records. The relief sought for by the petitioner reads as under:
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to carry out the AMALDARAMAD/mutate the name of the petitioner and his other family members in the revenue record of Araji No. 735, pursuant to the Consolidation Officer's order dated 08.08.2013 and consequential Parvana for Amaldaramad dated 21.05.2015, within stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court;"
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 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."
In view of the above, I do not find any ground to issue any such direction to the authority concerned as prayed for.
The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is a complete Code in itself. The petitioner is at liberty to move application before the authority concerned to expedite the matter. The Court hopes and trusts that in case any such application is made before the authority concerned, he 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 :- 29.5.2018 SKT/-