JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Raj Baksh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:- "I. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to pass appropriate order for restraining to the respondent no.6 & 7 not to raise any construction till the finalization of the legal partition of Gata No.392 & 393 situated at Village-Rasoiya, Pargana-Patti, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. II. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to pass an appropriate order to the effect that the Suit for partition filed by the petitioner, which kept in the office of the SDM, Raniganj, Pratapgarh, be decided by any competent authority except Opp.Party No.4 as early as possible. III. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to pass appropriate order on the representation dated 21.07.2020 made by the petitioner for taking action against the opp.parties No.4 and 5." 3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order dated 19.10.2020 which reads as under:- "Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and opposite parties No. 4 to 7 have purchased property in gata No. 392 and 393 from one seller. Since there was no partition, therefore, the petitioner had filed a suit for partition under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code before the opposite party No.3 but the same was returned by the office stating that the same can not be accepted without permission of the opposite party No.3/4 as the opposite party No.4 is interested on behalf of the private opposite parties. He further submitted that he has sent the suit through registered post on 15.7.2020 but till date the same has not been registered and no date has been fixed. Sri Pankaj Srivastava learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instruction as to why the suit filed by petitioner was returned and whether it has been registered or not. List in the first week of November, 2020 as fresh." 4. Sri Pankaj Srivastava learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instruction as to why the suit filed by petitioner was returned and whether it has been registered or not. List in the first week of November, 2020 as fresh." 4. In furtherance of the order dated 19.10.2020, the matter was listed again on 04.11.2020 and the order dated 04.11.2020 reads as under:- "Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that despite letter written to the concerned authority the instructions could not be received. He prays for and is granted a week's further time to seek instructions. List on 18.11.2020, as fresh. In case the instructions are not provided, the opposite party no.3 shall appear in person on the date fixed." 5. The matter was again listed on 18.11.2020 wherein neither the instructions had been received nor the opposite party No.3 appeared. Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court passed the order dated 18.11.2020 which reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. A coordinate Bench of this Court noticing the contents of paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the writ petition by means of the order dated 19.10.2020 directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to why the suit of the petitioner was returned and whether the same was registered or not. Again on 04.11.2020 as the instructions had yet not been received, the matter was again postponed and by means of order dated 04.11.2020, it was provided that in case if the instructions are not provided, the opposite party no. 3 shall appear in person on the next date. Today, it has been informed by the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel that neither the instructions are complete nor the opposite party no. 3 is present in the Court despite the order dated 04.11.2020 having been conveyed. It is a serious matter, this Court cannot permit the officials to allow or take the orders passed by the Courts lightly. List/put up this matter on 25.11.2020, as fresh on which date both the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 shall appear in person and this order shall be communicated today itself by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel." 6. List/put up this matter on 25.11.2020, as fresh on which date both the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 shall appear in person and this order shall be communicated today itself by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel." 6. Today, when the matter was taken up, Shri Rahul Kumar Yadav, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Raniganj, District Pratapgarh is present in person and he has also filed his counter affidavit. 7. Another application has been moved on behalf of the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh seeking an exemption for his appearance and it has been stated that the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh has been nominated as A.R.O. relating to upcoming elections of the Teachers and Graduate Constituency Elections, 2020 where the polling is scheduled to be held on 01.12.2020. It has further been stated in the affidavit that since District Pratapgarh is politically sensitive, hence leaving the headquarter will adversely impact the work and supervision of the election duty, hence, the exemption has been prayed. 8. Considering the aforesaid, the Court finds the cause sufficient and exempts the appearance of the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. 9. Significant to note that the main purpose of passing the above mentioned orders was to ensure reception of proper instructions in the matter. Since, the same were not received, hence, the Court was compelled to summon the opposite party No.3 -Sub-Divisional Magistrate Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. 10. The instant petition has been preferred with serious allegations to the effect that an attempt was made by the petitioner to file a suit for partition under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code and despite the same was presented in the office of the opposite party No.3, the same was refused. A copy of the suit was also sent by post to the opposite party No.2 -District Magistrate, Pratapgarh as well as opposite party No.3 -Sub-Divisional Magistrate Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. Despite the same, the suit was not registered. In the meantime, the private-opposite parties had started raising constructions which adversely impacted the rights of the petitioner and it has also been alleged that the private-opposite parties were actively aided by the opposite parties no.4 and 5. In this regard, Paragraphs 11 to 18 of the writ petition are important. 11. At the very outset, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Shri Raj Baksh Singh had informed that the order passed by the Court was communicated to the authorities concerned by FAX through Dispatch No.N-7488. In this regard, Paragraphs 11 to 18 of the writ petition are important. 11. At the very outset, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Shri Raj Baksh Singh had informed that the order passed by the Court was communicated to the authorities concerned by FAX through Dispatch No.N-7488. Despite the same, it appears that the communication was not properly conveyed as a result, the officer concerned i.e. opposite party no.3 could not appear before this Court on 18.11.2020 for which an apology has been tendered. It has also been informed that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned has already issued a show cause notice to the person concerned as to why the aforesaid matter was not brought to his knowledge. 12. This fact apart, this Court is more concerned with the allegations which have been leveled by the petitioner more particularly in Paragraphs 11 to 15 of the writ petition against the Government officials, who discharging judicial and quasi judicial functions. 13. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is an important Court especially in the districts where large number of cases relating to revenue and arise out of the land and rights of the farmers as well as other persons involved. 14. Even otherwise, a right to legal redressal is a fundamental right and it has been recognized by the Constitution of our country. An authority, howsoever, high is not allowed to refuse a case or a petition from being filed if it otherwise complies with the necessary Rules regarding filing. 15. In the present case at hand, the allegations are that the petitioner had approached the opposite party No.3 for filing a suit for partition, which has been categorically stated in Paragraph 13 of the writ petition. Since, the office of the opposite party No.3 refused to accept/receive the same, a copy of the original suit was sent by registered post on 14.07.2020. It has also been specifically stated in Paragraph 14 that the registered cover addressed to the District Magistrate was returned back, however, the copy sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not return back as it was sent to the correct address in law. It has further been stated in the petition that the aforesaid copy would be presumed to have been received and despite the same, the suit was not registered. 16. Under what circumstances, the opposite party No.3 refused to entertain is a question which requires inquiry. It has further been stated in the petition that the aforesaid copy would be presumed to have been received and despite the same, the suit was not registered. 16. Under what circumstances, the opposite party No.3 refused to entertain is a question which requires inquiry. No person can be deprived of his right to seek legal redressal or to approach a Court of Law / Judicial forum . 17. From a conjoint reading of the paragraphs of the writ petition, wherein it has been alleged that all this has been done by the opposite parties no.3, 4 and 5 to actively aid the private-opposite parties. 18. It is in this backdrop that a specific query was put to Shri Rahul Kumar Yadav, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Raniganj, District Pratapgarh as to whether he had received any information regarding filing of the suit on 13.07.2020. Another query put to him was whether he had received a copy of the suit sent by registered post on 14.07.2020 and if so then in what circumstances the suit was not registered. 19. Shri Yadav could not given any clear reply to the aforesaid quires. 20. At this juncture, he was also confronted with the counter affidavit filed by him dated 25.11.2020. Despite the same, he could not give any clear or convincing answer. 21. This Court has perused the counter affidavit filed by Shri Yadav and it reveals that paragraph 11 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied. Paragraph 12 of the writ petition has also been denied stating that it is a matter of record and needs no comments. 22. Significantly, Paragraph-13 has been vaguely denied and it has never been stated that the petitioner did not present any suit nor it has been stated that the office of the opposite party no.3 refused to accept the suit rather it has been stated that the suit of the petitioner has been registered on 01.09.2020 and further that the petitioner tried to obtain a stay order forcibly by visiting the residence of the opposite party no.3 wherein he instructed that any order can be passed only after hearing the parties and in the Court and there was no occasion to pass any ex-parte order on any other venue except the Court. Again in reply to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ petition, there is no comment whereas a specific mention was made in the writ petition that a copy of the suit was sent by registered post. 23. There has been no denial of the fact that the copy of the suit was sent by the petitioner through post. If at all the aforesaid suit was not sent by post and assuming that no petition was even presented on 13.07.2020 and there has been no averment that after the said dates, the petitioner come forward to file suit subsequently then under what circumstances, the opposite party no.3 registered the suit on 01.09.2020. 24. Another document to be taken note of is the letter annexed as Annexure No.3 dated 14.07.2020 upon which the opposite party No.3 is said to have passed an order. In the said letter dated 14.07.2020, it was clearly mentioned that the suit was being presented in the office which was refused on account of lockdown and the suit was not entertained. 25. On one hand, the opposite party No.3 has passed an order on the application of the petitioner and on the other hand, the suit was not entertained and thereafter in the counter affidavit it has been stated that the suit was registered on 01.09.2020. 26. Another question was put to Shri Yadav as what is the next date fixed in the suit and whether the petitioner was communicated about the registration of the suit, however he could not give any clear reply. 27. In view of the aforesaid, what disturbs the Court is that a responsible officer, who under the U.P. Revenue Code is mandated to preside over as a Court and decide a lis between the parties, has prima-facie abdicated its duties which is nothing but a blatant violation of the right of the citizen to seek legal redressal. 28. 27. In view of the aforesaid, what disturbs the Court is that a responsible officer, who under the U.P. Revenue Code is mandated to preside over as a Court and decide a lis between the parties, has prima-facie abdicated its duties which is nothing but a blatant violation of the right of the citizen to seek legal redressal. 28. It is in view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that as the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No.3 nor the replies given by the opposite party No.3, who is present in person is convincing or lucid, hence, this Court deems appropriate that this matter be inquired and the conduct and role of Shri Rahul Kumar Yadav be examined and for the aforesaid purpose, the Principal Secretary (Revenue) shall hold an inquiry which shall be concluded expeditiously preferably within three months from the date a copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned and send the inquiry report to the Senior Registrar of this Court to be placed on the record of this petition. 29. Now insofar as the reliefs claimed by the petitioner is concerned, as already noted above, the suit of the petitioner has been registered, thus, it shall be open for the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the Court concerned to seek the redressal of its grievances as has been prayed in the instant petition. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed his apprehension of not getting justice at the behest of the opposite parties No.2 and 3. Though this Court refrains from making any further comment but nevertheless it shall be open for the petitioner to move a proper application before the District Magistrate Pratapgarh, who shall consider the facts and circumstances as pleaded and shall pass orders on the issue of transfer of the proceedings before some other Court as he may deem fit to enable the parties to get their rights adjudicated in accordance with law. 31. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, no further adjudication or relief as prayed by the petitioner can be granted by this Court. 32. Before parting, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the disputes between the parties and the Court concerned shall be free to decide the lis purely in accordance with law. 33. 32. Before parting, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the disputes between the parties and the Court concerned shall be free to decide the lis purely in accordance with law. 33. A copy of this order shall be placed before the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of U.P., for compliance. The report so received from the Principal Secretary shall be placed on the record of this petition. 34. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.