Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2873 (ALL)

RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2003-12-10

S.N.SRIVASTAVA

body2003
S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THE petition in hand has been instituted with the solitary prayer of issuing mandamus to the consolidation authority concerned to decide the case lingering adjudication since the year 1985. ( 2 ) IN the instant case, litigation erupted with the institution of a suit for declaration of sirdari rights in the year 1973 culminated in a decree on 19. 4. 1974. Thereafter, the matter journeyed upto Board of Revenue and thereafter, the petitioner made application for correction of revenue record. Subsequently, the village was notified for consolidation and consequently, application for giving effect to the orders dated 6. 12. 1974 and 3. 10. 1985 was filed which coincided with objection preferred by the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 under Section 9a. It is ever since then that case no. 80 has been lingering decision before the Consolidation Offfcer II, Sikarpur, District bulandshahr. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has mostly attributed protraction of the decision to the twin reasons of the manoeuvring being employed by the contesting respondents and absence, of presiding officer and in vindication, he has filed copy of order-sheet by means of supplementary-affidavit. From a perusal of the order-sheet it is quite eloquent that the case has been suffering protraction mainly due to non-availability of the Presiding Officer. ( 4 ) CONSIDERING the nature of relief sought by means of the present petition, I would like to advert to the provisions of the scheme in order to (sic) out whether it conceives expeditious disposal of the disputes between the litigating parties. No doubt, the Consolidation Scheme as embodied in the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was conceived with avowed object of mitigating the hardships of the peasants/ agriculturist and to facilitate access to expeditious disposal of their rights under the Consolidation Act. From time to time, the Legislatures have imported amendments consistent with the felt need of tenure holders. The Statement of Objects and reasons as contained in the original Act may be extracted below : "after the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, there was naturally a pressing demand for the consolidation of holdings in the State. The Statement of Objects and reasons as contained in the original Act may be extracted below : "after the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, there was naturally a pressing demand for the consolidation of holdings in the State. Since the complicated and numerous types of tenures, both proprietary and cultivatory, the greatest stumbling block in the way of successful consolidation of holdings, have been abolished, it is an opportune time to start this work. The advantages of having in compact blocks all the lands farmed by one family need only be briefly mentioned. Boundary lines would be reduced in number and extent, saving land and diminishing boundary disputes, larger fields would be possible and time saved in making trips to the fields. Further if land were all in one piece, barriers, such as fences, hedges and ditches could be erected to obtain privacy and prevent trespassing, thieving and gleaning. The control of irrigation and drainage water would be easier ; control of pests, insect and disease would also be less difficult. " ( 5 ) THE Amending Act XXXVIII of 1958 dispensed with the provisions of arbitration on the ground that it used to cause delay. This Amending Act also incorporated provisions for a second appeal and a revision against the order of Consolidation Officer in order to inspire greater confidence in the people in the adjudication of rights by the consolidation authorities. The aims and objects of the Amending Act are excerpted below : "the working of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, has revealed certain shortcomings. There is a public demand in certain areas for recognition of consolidation which might have already been carried out by the tenure holders voluntarily. Since the jurisdiction of bhumidhari is being transferred to revenue courts, it has become necessary to do away with the provisions of Arbitration which used to cause delay. To inspire greater confidence in the people in the adjudication of rights by consolidation authorities it is proposed to provide for a second appeal and a revision against the order of Consolidation Officer. The present valuation of plots on the basis of soil classification and rent rates have not been found satisfactory. It is now proposed to provide for valuation of plot on the basis of productivity, availability of irrigational facility and location etc. in consultation with the consolidation committee. . The present valuation of plots on the basis of soil classification and rent rates have not been found satisfactory. It is now proposed to provide for valuation of plot on the basis of productivity, availability of irrigational facility and location etc. in consultation with the consolidation committee. . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 6 ) FROM a bare perusal of the aims and objects as excerpted below, it would thus crystallize that the spirit underlying the entire scheme is to subserve the purpose of mitigating the hardship and to remove the stumbling block in the ways of poor masses, which hitherto had constituted a low visibility area. Bearing in mind the above objects, the expeditious disposal of their rights under the scheme constitutes the very core of the scheme as conceived under the Consolidation of holdings Act. A procedure is held to be just and fair because it commands fairness in all its pros and cons. The fairness would be impaired if the procedure does not provide for speedy trial of the dispute between the parties. It is well-settled view that procedure prescribed by law must be just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive. In this perspective, the question posed is whether the delay in adjudication of the case pending before the Consolidation Officer since the year 1985 would constitute violation of rights of the parties to speedy Justice. If the situation is viewed through the spectacles of the Constitution of India, Justice has been assured in the preamble of the Constitution to all citizens. With widening horizon, Article 21 of the constitution of India has also been amplified so as to Include the right, to speedy trial/ Justice as a fundamental right and consequently, right to speedy trial has been held to be requirement of article 21 of the Constitution of India. In S. C. Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of india, (1993) 4 SCC 441 , while dealing with the question of the strength of Judges of various high Courts in India, Honble Supreme Court observed that provision of speedy trial is an obligation of the State for otherwise operation of the legal system would not promote justice which is assured in the Preamble of the Constitution. It was further observed that : "if it is shown that the existing strength is inadequate to provide speedy justice to the people-speedy trial being a requirement of Article 21-inspite of the optimum efficiency of the existing strength, a direction can be issued to assess the felt need and fix the strength of Judges commensurate with the need to fulfil the State obligation of providing speedy justice and to thereby secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, a solemn resolve declared also in the Preamble of the constitution. " ( 7 ) IN the perspective of the above discussion, it is deducible that speedy disposal of a dispute under Consolidation Scheme is a fundamental right of the parties as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As held by the Apex Court, provision of speedy trial is an obligation of the State for otherwise operation of the legal system would not promote Justice which is assured in the Preamble of the Constitution, a general mandamus is issued to the State Government through its Principal Secretary (Revenue), to ensure proper strength of the Presiding Officers of consolidation courts in the State of U. P. and also to ensure that all objections preferred under section 9a of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and appeal/revision arising therefrom, be finally decided within a reasonable period not exceeding six months. ( 8 ) IN so far as instant case is concerned, the order sheet manifests that the matter was heard by the Consolidation Officer lastly on 23. 4. 2003 and the judgment/ order is still awaited. In view of the fact that there is nothing explicatory on the record in vindication of the unusual delay, it is directed that the Consolidation Officer shall take the matter to some finality within a period not exceeding two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ( 9 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above directions. ( 10 ) LET a certified copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, U. P. Shasan lucknow for circulation to all the consolidation authorities in the State of U. P. for compliance accordingly.