JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This is one yet another case where complete lethargy, unmindfulness and laxity on behalf of the State-Authorities in discharge of their judicial/quasi-judicial functions has come to light. 3. The petitioner had filed the instant petition seeking direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to register and decide the case of demarcation filed by the petitioners on 18.08.2022 under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 4. At the outset, it may be noticed that the basic prayer of the petitioner was to get a case registered which in itself was alarming. 5. Any person who wants the demarcation of his land holding can invoke Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Section 24 is a substantive provision and it vests power in Sub Divisional Magistrate to exercise judicial and quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate the case and decide it in accordance with law. Relevant Rules have also been framed and the provision of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Rule 22 framed thereafter are being reproduced hereinafter:- “24. Disputes regarding boundaries . - (1) The Sub-Divisional Officer may, on his own motion or on an application made in this behalf by a person interested, decide, by summary inquiry, any dispute regarding boundaries on the basis of existing survey maps or, where they have been revised in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, on the basis of such maps, but if this is not possible, the boundaries shall be fixed on the basis of actual possession. (2) If in the course of an inquiry into a dispute under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in possession or if it is shown that possession has been obtained by wrongful dispossession of the lawful occupant, the Sub-Divisional Officer shall- (a) in the first case, ascertain by summary inquiry who is the person best entitled to the property, and shall put such person in possession; (b) in the second case, put the person so dispossessed in possession, and for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and shall then fix the boundary accordingly. (3) Every proceeding under this section shall, as far as possible, be concluded by the Sub-Divisional Officer within three months from the date of the application. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer may prefer an appeal before the Commissioner within thirty days of the date of such order[ The order of the Commissioner shall, subject to the provisions of Section 210 be final.] *****-------******-------** -------* * Rule- 22. Settlement of boundary dispute ( Section 24 ).- [(1) Under Section 24 (1) of the Code the tenure-holder shall submit two copies of the application for settlement of boundary dispute to the Sub-Divisional-Officer for one or more than one contiguous gatas, and it shall contain the following particulars: (a) Details of Gata .-- Gata number, name of tenure holder, father/husband's name of village/tehsil. If the tenure-holders are more than one, then particulars of all shall be mentioned; current updated khatauni shall also be to be attached to the application. ( b) Details of contiguous Gata.-- Gata number, name of tenure holder, father/husband's name, name of village/tehsil. If the tenure holders are more than one, then particulars of all shall be mentioned. Current updated khatauni shall also be attached to the application. (2) If the khata is different in khatauni, but sub-division is not done in sazra-map, then sub-division in sazra-map shall be necessary. (3) If boundary of any property of Gram Panchayat/State Government is adjacent to gata/gatas to be demarcated, then the Chairman, Land Management committee/Gram Pradhan and the State Government shall be made a party in the case. (4) Only the outer boundary shall be demarcated for an application made for boundary demarcation of contiguous gatas. (5) The applicant shall deposit a fee of Rs. 1000/- in Government treasury for the demarcation of gata/attached gatas. A copy of challan receipt shall also be attached with the application form. (6) On receipt of an application for demarcation, on the same or next working day, the Sub-Division.al-Officer shall register the case in Revenue Court Computerised Management System (RCCMS). Three copies of notices shall be issued from the computerized system and will be delivered to the Revnue Inspector through Tehsildar. (7) The Revenue Inspector shall serve notice to the concerned tenure- holder/tenure-holders as mentioned in sub-rule (1), through the Lekhpal or through any other mode. Three copies of notices shall be issued from the computerized system and will be delivered to the Revnue Inspector through Tehsildar. (7) The Revenue Inspector shall serve notice to the concerned tenure- holder/tenure-holders as mentioned in sub-rule (1), through the Lekhpal or through any other mode. In absence of the tenure-holders, notice will be served to the adult family member of the tenure-holder/ tenure-holders. The information of demarcation shall also be given to the Chairman, Land Management Committee. (8) At the time of sending the information or before the demarcation on site, if the Revenue Inspector wants to make any other affected person, a party to the case he can do so. (9) After fixing the date of demarcation and intimation to all the concerned tenure-holders, the Revenue Inspector or any other revenue official will demarcate the land parcel or parcels, as the case may be, during demarcation if any affected tenure-holder is not a party to the case, such tenure-holder shall be made a party to the case by the Revenue Inspector on the spot and he will mention the same in his demarcation report. Demarcation shall be completed within a month from the date of order for the same by the Sub-Divisional-Officer. (10) The Revenue Inspector or other revenue officials shall prepare the demarcation report along with the site memo. If there are no objections to the same, then after getting the consent and signature of all the concerned parties on the demarcation report, the same shall be sent it to the Sub- Divisional-Officer through Tehsildar in a week. On receipt of the aforesaid report of the Revenue Inspector, the Sub-Divisional-officer will pass the order confirming the demarcation report. (11) If the affected parties to the demarcation have not given their consent to the demarcation, or if there is any objection to the demarcation report, notice(s) will be issued by the Sub-Divisional-Officer to all the parties, fixing a date of hearing which shall not be beyond 15 days from the date of issuance of notice. (12) The Sub-Divisional-Officer shall pass an order on the matter of boundary demarcation after hearing all the concerned parties. The Revenue Inspector shall comply with such order within two weeks from the date of order, and shall submit his report to the Sub-Divisional-Officer. (12) The Sub-Divisional-Officer shall pass an order on the matter of boundary demarcation after hearing all the concerned parties. The Revenue Inspector shall comply with such order within two weeks from the date of order, and shall submit his report to the Sub-Divisional-Officer. (13) Where the boundary of gata/survey number is not recognizable due to alluvion or diluvion of land, or heavy rain, or due to damage caused by any other reason, then on the application of the Chairman of village Revenue Committee of that village, or on the report of the Revenue Inspector or Lekhpal, or on the joint application signed b9 all the concerned parties, the Sub-Divisional-Officer shall instruct the Revenue Inspector or Lekhpal by a general or special order in writing, that the demarcate the boundary on ground on the basis of current survey map or, where it is possible, on the basis of possession, and if there is any complaint, then on the advice of Village Revenue Committee, resolve the same on the basis of mutual consent. The Revenue Inspector or Lekhpal shall comply with such order within two weeks from the date of order, and will submit his report to the Sub-Divisional-Officer. (14) At the time of passing order for demarcation under sub-rules (10), (13) or (14), the Sub-divisonal-Officer can direct the SHO of the concerned police station to make police force available on the spot at the time of demarcation of land, in order to maintain law and order. (15) The Sub-Divisional-Officer, will try to complete the process within the stipulated time as mentioned in Section 24 (3) of the Code and if the process is not completed within such time then the reason for the same shall be recorded.] 6. From the perusal of the same, it indicates a complete procedure has been prescribed which also provides that an order passed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is subject to an appeal under Section 24 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is further subject to a revision in terms of Section 210 of the Code of 2006.The Code of 2006, provides a timeline within which such proceedings are to be decided. In this regard Section 24 (3), Rule 22(5) and Rule 22 (16) may also be seen and the same reproduced as under:- “ Section 24 .- (3) Every proceeding under this section shall, as far as possible, be concluded by the Sub-Divisional Officer within three months from the date of the application. ******--------******--------******-------- Rule 22(5) The applicant shall deposit a fee of Rs. 1000/- in Government treasury for the demarcation of gata/attached gatas. A copy of challan receipt shall also be attached with the application form.” ******--------******--------******-------- Rule 22 (16):- The Sub-Divisional Officer shall make an endevour to conclude the proceeding within the period specified in Section 24 (3) and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reason for the same shall be recorded. 7. Where a complete procedure has been prescribed and the legislature by fixing a time line of three months in the statute clearly reflects a conscious effort and direction that such summary proceedings must be given the impetus and the time framed mentioned must be adhered and thus it must have some meaning. 8. However, in the instant case what is relevant to notice is the averments made by the petitioner that he had filed the application for demarcation along with the necessary deposit of fee on 18.08.2022. Since 18.08.2022, there has been no progress in the matter, so much so, that there is not even a single order by which the case was registered and it is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner had to approach this Court. 9. Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court had called upon the learned Standing Counsel to produce the original records which have been placed before the Court today. 10. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the application was filed by the petitioner is dated 18.08.2022. There is an order on the application itself which is also dated 18.08.2022 requiring the Revenue Inspector to furnish his report. 11. The record further indicates that the original receipt of deposit of Rs. 1000 as fee dated 13th July, 2022 is also on record. The vakalatnama of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also dated 18.08.2022. 12. There is an order on the application itself which is also dated 18.08.2022 requiring the Revenue Inspector to furnish his report. 11. The record further indicates that the original receipt of deposit of Rs. 1000 as fee dated 13th July, 2022 is also on record. The vakalatnama of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also dated 18.08.2022. 12. The record does not indicate that since filing of the petition when was it registered, what number was assigned and what was date fixed and what transpired since the date when the proceedings were initiated on 18.08.2022. 13. The order sheet which is available on record is dated 22nd January, 2025 fixing the next date as 30.01.2025. This appears to have been drawn after this Court had passed an order on 23.01.2025 requiring the learned Standing Counsel to produce the original record and the said order reads as under:- "The petitioners have approached this court with the prayer that they have furnished an application under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the S.D.O., Kadipur, District Sultanpur of which he has deposited the fee on 13.7.2022 and till date, the said case has not been registered. Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has instructed to state that the case has been registered and listed on 30.1.2025. It is one thing to state that the case has been listed and fixed on 30.1.2025 but the fact remains that in the instructions it has not been indicated that what is the date of registration which assumes significance for the reason that in the petition, it has been alleged that the case since July, 2022 was not registered. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel is directed to produce the original records. List on 27.1.2025, as fresh." 14. Since registration of the case on 22.01.2025, the next date fixed was 30.01.2025 but even thereafter it does not indicate that what happened on 30.01.2025. the application, vakalatnama,order sheet and fee deposit receipt of the case are being scanned and reproduced herein for ready reference:- 16. Apparently the aforesaid record as scanned shows great laxity on the part of the State-Authorities. Refusing to register as case for more than two and a half years without any justification amounts to denial of the fundamental right of securing justice from the Court. 17. Apparently the aforesaid record as scanned shows great laxity on the part of the State-Authorities. Refusing to register as case for more than two and a half years without any justification amounts to denial of the fundamental right of securing justice from the Court. 17. This Court had the occasion to consider issues which are inflicting the revenue courts as a disease including non-registration of case in Writ Petition No. 6512 of 2024 (A-227) (Tahrunnisha and Another); 2025:AHC-LKO:2059 decided on 10th January, 2025, in W.P. No. 412 (A-227) of 2024; Mohammad Altaf Mansoor @ Chaudhary Mohammad Altaf Mansoor Vs. Sub Divisional Magisrtrate, Barabanki and others); Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10233 Writ-C No. 10297 of 2024; 2024 AHC-LKO: 81839 ( Bhupendra Singh Vs. SDO, Pratapgarh and Others ), Writ-C No. 10312 of 2024; 2024: AHC-LKO: 81781, Writ-C No. 3900 of 2024; 2024; AHC:LKO:52394 (DooberVs. Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others), Mohd. Ameen Vs. DDC, Bahraich; MANU/UP/4004/2024 and Avadhesh Kumar and Others Vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others; 2022 SCC Online All 636. 18. Considering the aforesaid as well the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since his case has now been registered, he does not want to take up the cudgels with the State-Authorities as his case may be viewed adversely, hence, only an expedite order may be passed. 19. Noticing the same, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Authority concerned to decide the matter after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties preferrably within a period of three months from today. 20. It is made clear that in so far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Court has not expressed any opinion and it will be open for the State-Authorities decide the case in accordance with law. 21. However, for the laxity shown as well as for depriving a litigant to get legal redressal which otherwise as per the Act should have been decided on merits within a period of three months and it has taken more than two and a half year to register the case is something which this Court cannot ignore by shutting its eyes. This Court in Tahurnnisha (Supra) noticing the laxity had awarded a cost of Rs. This Court in Tahurnnisha (Supra) noticing the laxity had awarded a cost of Rs. 5,000/- with the fond hope that it might wake up the State Authorities from their slumber but it appears that the message has not gone down straight. Accordingly, in this case which reflects clearly dereliction of duty and there can be no plausible explanation as to why after receiving the petition on 18.08.2022, the matter was not registered and in whose custody this file remained gathering dust for more than 2 and a half years. Only after this Court had summoned the record that the respondent has registered the case itself reflects laxity of its officer who is the adjudicatory Authority. Refusing to register a case or not to act upon it and keeping it with itself without proceeding in accordance with law especially when the petition was in order along with deposit of fee. The Authority who is to decide the matter by not registering the case has made a litigant to suffer which is patent violation of principles of natural justice and also violates the right of a litigant to get legal redressal which is a constitutional right. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- as cost is to be paid by the State to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. It shall be open for the State Government to recover the said amount from the erring officer responsible for the debacle after holding an enquiry. 22. In view of the cases coming frequently before this Court indicating procedural lapses, this Court deems appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary, Revenue to get an audit done in all Districts to ensure that cases which are filed are promptly registered and there should not be any case which is filed and is kept with the court concerned without registration so that it can be taken to its logical conclusion. Necessary directions and exercise be undertaken and its report may also be informed to the Court as to what action has been taken and in how many districts how many such unregistered cases were found and what further action has been taken. 23. Necessary directions and exercise be undertaken and its report may also be informed to the Court as to what action has been taken and in how many districts how many such unregistered cases were found and what further action has been taken. 23. Let this exercise be completed within a period of two months and its report be submitted before this Court on 05 th May, 2025 and this case shall be listed on the said date only for the aforesaid purpose and a copy of this order shall be served on the Principal Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow through Senior Registrar of this Court.