Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1103 (ALL)

Abu Nasar v. State of U. P.

2018-05-03

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs: (i) issue a writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the Respondent no. 2 not to disposes the petitioner from gata no.444 area 500 kari, situated in village Koilari Bujurg Tehsil Mehnagar District Azamgarh in the interest of justice; (ii) issue a writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the respondent No. 3 to decide the application of the petitioner filed under rule 109 of the C.H. Act during pendency of the present writ petition, in the interest of justice." 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.8.2017 has decided his objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 but the said order has not been carried out in the revenue records. The petitioner has moved an application under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. When no action was taken he has also approached the Deputy Director, Consolidation on 15.2.2018. A copy of the application, which bears the order passed by the D.D.C. dated 16.2.2018 directing the Consolidation Officer to take action in accordance with law is on the record as annexure-4 to the writ petition. 3. In the present petition, the petitioner has sought a direction of this Court to the third respondent, Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh to dispose of his application made under Rule 109 of the Rules, 1954. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470 has taken the view that in all the High Courts a large number of frivolous writ petitions on petty matters are being entertained which has resulted in a huge pendency and the important cases are becoming infructuous due to filing of huge number of those petitions. The Supreme Court in the case of Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112 has held that it is high time where the High Courts should curb the tendency of filing petitions on petty matters by imposing heavy costs and the cost should not be imposed only on clients but also on advocates who accept brief in petty and frivolous matters. Relevant part of the judgment in Phool Chandra is extracted below: "12. All these are aberrations in the functioning of the Apex Court of any country. Of late, there has been an increase in the trend of litigants rushing to the courts, including this Court, for all kinds of trivial and silly matters which results in wastage of public money and time. A closer scrutiny of all such matters would disclose that there was not even a remote justification for filing the case. It is a pity that the time of the court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if the learned counsel who are officers of the court and who are expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients. The Bar has to realise that the great burden upon the Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden should not needlessly be made unbearable. The Judges of this Nation are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the gentlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done. 13. It is high time that the courts should come down heavily upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigation. In order to curb such kind of litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive which can be ensured by imposing exemplary costs upon the parties as well as on the learned counsel who act in an irresponsible manner. {Vide Varinderpal Singh v. M.R. Sharma, (1986) Supp1 SCC 719, Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 1, and Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani, (2012) 8 SCC 781 }" 6. Having due regard to the facts of the case, I do not find it a fit case to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1954) is a complete code in itself. Having due regard to the facts of the case, I do not find it a fit case to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1954) is a complete code in itself. The petitioner may take recourse to the remedy available under the said Act. 7. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of. Since the petitioner is a poor farmer the Court desists from imposing cost on the petitioner.