Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 243 (UTT)

Jagjeet Singh v. Balvinder Singh

2024-04-08

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed by learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, in Transfer Application No. 15 of 2022-23 ‘Balvinder Singh and Others Vs. Jagjeet Singh and Others’, whereby the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun has transferred the Second Appeal No. 16 of 2021-22 to the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Dehradun from Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Nainital. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which was dismissed by the order dated 20.09.2019; that, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Nainital, which was allowed vide order dated 03.08.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent nos.1 and 2 preferred Second Appeal No. 16 of 2021-22 before the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Circuit Bench, Nainital against the petitioner; that, during pendency of the said appeal, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 moved an application before learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to transfer the Second Appeal No. 16 of 2021-22 to the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Dehradun from the Circuit Bench, Nainital; that, learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun allowed the said application vide impugned order dated 27.01.2023 and transferred the said Second Appeal to the Board of Revenue situated at Dehradun and directed the parties to appear there, on 17.02.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred present petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally the Second Appeal was filed by the respondent nos. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred present petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that originally the Second Appeal was filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 (the appellants in the Second Appeal) before the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench at Nainital and the address of the petitioner in that Second Appeal was given as Village Majgami, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar; that, the land in dispute is also situated within the Kumaon Division; that, the learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun without assigning any reason and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has transferred the case to the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench at Dehradun; that, the petitioner is an old person and a resident of Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to conduct the proceedings at Dehradun; that, it seems that the order of transferring the Second Appeal was passed only to facilitate the case of respondent nos. 1 & 2; that, the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 is a non-speaking order as no specific reason has been assigned for transferring the said second appeal. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 (the appellants in the Second Appeal) vehemently contests these submissions on the ground that despite several hearings before the Board of Revenue sitting at Nainital, the Second Appeal could not be disposed of because of non-appearance of the counsel of the respondent nos. 1 & 2, therefore, the said second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution; that, even the learned Judicial Member of the Board of Revenue orally instructed the respondent nos. 1 & 2/appellants that their counsel is not conducting their case properly, therefore, they should get that second appeal transferred to the Board of Revenue situated at Dehradun as there is higher pendency of cases in the Bench at Nainital than in the Bench at Dehradun. 5. On the query of this Court, the State counsel would submit that the Board of Revenue situated at Dehradun has two Presiding Officers and each have lesser pendency than the Board of Renvenue, Circuit Bench, Nainital. 6. In compliance of the order dated 11.03.2024, whereby the Court directed the State counsel to file report about the pendency of cases in Dehradun Bench and Circuit Bench, Board of Revenue, Nainital; that, the State counsel produced the copy of the reply no. 6. In compliance of the order dated 11.03.2024, whereby the Court directed the State counsel to file report about the pendency of cases in Dehradun Bench and Circuit Bench, Board of Revenue, Nainital; that, the State counsel produced the copy of the reply no. 550/V- / jkt0ifj0 /2024 dated 04.04.2024 sent by Shri Chandresh Kumar, Commissioner/Secretary to District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in which, in a tabular form, it is stated that in the month of March 2024, Member, Judicial (First) has pendency of 188 cases, Member, Judicial (Second) has pendency of 205 cases and the Circuit Bench, Nainital has a pendency of 331 cases. On further query of the Court, the State counsel would submit that as per Section 191 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, the case could have been transferred from one Presiding Officer to the other; that, in the Uttarakhand Board of Revenue there is one Chairman and two Members and the Circuit Bench sits at Nainital only twice a month, therefore, there is higher pendency of cases in the Bench at Nainital than in the Bench at Dehradun. 7. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, this Court perused the application (Annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the Writ Petition) filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 (the appellants in the Second Appeal) for transferring the Second Appeal No. 16 of 2021-22 from Circuit Bench, Nainital to Circuit Bench, Dehradun. 8. In the said application, it is averred by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 that the final hearing in the Second Appeal No. 16 of 2021-22 ‘Balvinder Singh & Another Vs. Jagjeet Singh’, could not take place before the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Nainital as the counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 (the appellants in the Second Appeal) was not taking interest in their case, therefore, their second appeal was dismissed on 30.10.2021 for non-prosecution and the same got restored later on. Paragraph No. 4 of the said application itself shows that it was the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Nainital who had suggested the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to get their case transferred to the bench of Board of Revenue, sitting at Dehradun. 9. Paragraph No. 4 of the said application itself shows that it was the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Nainital who had suggested the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to get their case transferred to the bench of Board of Revenue, sitting at Dehradun. 9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun would reflect that the learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun while passing the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 observed that several dates of hearing were fixed but the arguments could not be heard for one reason or the other (reason not specified), for which, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 (the appellants in the Second Appeal) are not getting justice. However, it is surprising that the learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand did not take the fact into consideration that the petitioner and even respondents were residents of Kumaon Division and the land in dispute was also situated at District Udham Singh Nagar in Kumaon Division. Therefore, the Board of Revenue erred in passing the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 for transferring the case to Dehradun from Nainital Circuit Bench of Board of Revenue. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 would submit that there are two judicial members sitting at Dehradun and only one member of the Board of Revenue sits at Circuit Bench, Nainital for hearing and that too only twice in a month notwithstanding the fact that the pendency of cases in Kumaon Division is 331. In paragraph no. 4 of application for transfer (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition), it is stated that judicial member of the Revenue Board had suggested to get the case transferred to Dehradun. 11. This Court is of the view that even if the hearing of the case could not take place for any reason (as stated in the impugned order), it is still not a sufficient reason to transfer the case to Dehradun Bench. As apparent, the reason for delay in justice is that the sitting of Circuit Bench of Revenue Board, Nainital is only twice in a month. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed by learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun is hereby set aside. As apparent, the reason for delay in justice is that the sitting of Circuit Bench of Revenue Board, Nainital is only twice in a month. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed by learned Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun is hereby set aside. The Board of Revenue sitting at Dehradun is directed to send the record of the Second Appeal No. 16 of 2021-22 to the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Nainital. Parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue sitting at Nainital Circuit Bench whenever it sits first in the month of May, 2024. 13. Last but not least, this Court is of the considered view that this type of situation has arisen only because of the reason that the Bench of Board of Revenue at Circuit Bench, Nainital is sitting only twice in a month despite huge pendency. The State of Uttarakhand has two divisions namely “Garhwal Division” and “Kumaon Division”. The seat of Circuit Bench of Board of Revenue in Kumaon Division is at Nainital. The pendency of Board of Revenue at Dehradun and Nainital are almost same (there may be other similar transferred cases of Kumaon Division pending at Dehradun Bench of the Board out of its total pendency at Dehradun). It is the constitutional duty of State to secure equal opportunity for justice. Article 39A of the Constitution of India says:- “39A. Equal justice and free legal aid.—The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.” This Article says that State shall secure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of any disability. Therefore, providing for sitting of a Circuit Bench only for twice in a month at Nainital is nothing but denial of opportunity to justice by reason of distance and travel. The respondent no. 3 is, therefore, directed to secure continuous sitting of at least one Bench of Board of Revenue at its Nainital Circuit Bench within six months. 14. Copy of the order be sent to the State i.e. respondent no. The respondent no. 3 is, therefore, directed to secure continuous sitting of at least one Bench of Board of Revenue at its Nainital Circuit Bench within six months. 14. Copy of the order be sent to the State i.e. respondent no. 3 through Chief Secretary for compliance.