JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri P. V. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue an order or direction, thereby commanding the opposite parties particularly opposite party no.3 to register the case, under Section 25 & 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on application dated 05.09.2024, in compliance of the judgment/order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in matters under Articel (A227) No.3906/2024, "Devesh Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others", in the interest of justice. True phocopy of the application dated 05.09.2024 moved by the petitioners to the opposite party no.3 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.2 to this petition. (ii) Issue an order or direction, thereby commanding the opposite parties, particularly opposite party no.3 to register the case under section 25 & 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and decide the same in accordance with law, with in stipulated period in terms of the judgment/order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. (iii) Issue an order or direction, thereby commanding the opposite parties, particularly opposite party no.3 that under what circumstances in-spite of the judgment/order passed by this Hon'ble Court, has not registered the case and proceeds in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 3. The Court on 20.02.2025 had passed the following order which reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 6. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted by the respondent no.7. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had moved an application dated 26.02.2024 for removal of encroachment, however, the same was not registered. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing no.3906 of 2024 (Devesh Singh and Another vs State of U.P and Ors). The grievance of the petitioners is that they had moved an application dated 26.02.2024 for removal of encroachment, however, the same was not registered. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing no.3906 of 2024 (Devesh Singh and Another vs State of U.P and Ors). The said petition came to be disposed by a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 23.08.2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh application before the competent authority and it was further directed that in case if such an application is made the said authority was directed to consider and decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in furtherance of the liberty granted by this Court in its order dated 23.08.2024, the petitioners had filed an application on 13.09.2024 but till date the same has not been registered. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that as the annexure no.2 filed by the petitioners themselves, their application has been entertained as the said annexure clearly indicates that on 13.09.2024 the Tehsildar concern has called for a report. It was put to the learned Standing counsel as to how the report to be summoned without registering the case and what is the date of registration and passing of the order as pointed out by the learned Standing counsel and what was the next date fixed and in this regard the learned Standing counsel submits that he requires time to update his instructions. List on 24.02.2025 as fresh." 4. List on 24.02.2025 as fresh." 4. Again on 07.03.2025, the Court had passed the following order which reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who has filed a supplementary affidavit which s taken on record as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents who has provided a copy of the written instructions under the signatures of Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Tehsildar, Sadar, District Ayodhya dated 06th March, 2025 wherein it has been indicated that the application of the petitioner dated 05.09.2024 was registered on 19.02.2025 wherein the next date fixed is 18.03.2025, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner has provided a downloaded copy of the extract of the case available on the official website of the Revenue Department indicating that in so far as the application of the petitioner, the same was registered on 19th February, 2025. The next date has been fixed 06.02.2025 whereafter the next date has been shown as 06.03.2025. There is a clear discrepancy, inasmuch, in the written instructions, it has been indicated that it was registered on 19th February, 2025 fixing 18.03.2025 as the next date. In this view of the matter, let the Tehsildar appear along with the original records on 10th March, 2025. List this matter on 10th March, 2025, as fresh. " 5. It is in furtherance thereof that Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Tehsildar Sadar, District Ayodhya has appeared before the Court alongwith the original records. 6. A specific query was put to Shri Chaudhary as to indicate when the aforesaid case filed by the petitioner was registered and it was stated that it was registered on 19.02.2025. From the original records, which were also given to the Court for perusal, it is clear that the case came to be registered on 19.02.2025 and notices were issued to the parties fixing 06.03.2025. There is another order of 06.03.2025 indicating that the case was called out. The notice served is on record. Fix 18.03.2025 for objection and disposal. 7. The record further indicates that the petitioner on 05.09.2024 had moved an application bearing paper No.11/1AA, upon which an order was passed that the Revenue Inspector may make an inspection and submit his report. This endorsement is dated 13.09.2024. 8. The notice served is on record. Fix 18.03.2025 for objection and disposal. 7. The record further indicates that the petitioner on 05.09.2024 had moved an application bearing paper No.11/1AA, upon which an order was passed that the Revenue Inspector may make an inspection and submit his report. This endorsement is dated 13.09.2024. 8. The record further indicates that the certified copy of the order passed by the High Court dated 23.08.2024 passed in petition under Article 227 bearing No.3906 of 2024 was also on record. It was put to the officer concerned as to once the orders of the High Court had been placed on record which clearly indicated that in case if the petitioner moved an application as liberty was granted the competent authority was directed to proceed, consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law, then under what circumstances, the application moved by the petitioner upon which the report of the Revenue Inspector was called without registering the case and without fixing the next date was entertained. 9. It has been informed by Shri Chaudhary that the report was called for by the Revenue Inspector and as per the given practice the report is to be submitted within 15 days. However, in the instant case, the report which is placed on record is dated 19.02.2025 and it is on the very same day that the case came to be registered under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 10. It was stated by the officer concerned that as soon as the report was placed on record, immediately, the case was registered and notices were issued. The officer concerned has also provided a copy of certain photographs alongwith the report of the Area Lekhpal which as per the officer, Shri Chaudhary was dated 08.03.2025 when an inspection was made and it was found that the illegal encroachment have been removed. One of the photographs also shows the presence of the officer concerned Shri Chaudhary at the site. The said photographs are taken on record. 11. It was also put to the officer concerned that as per the report which is available on record bearing paper No.5/2AA apparently notice was not sufficiently served yet in what circumstances the same was treated as sufficient so as to fix the next date for filing objection, as shall be evident from the order dated 06.03.2025. 11. It was also put to the officer concerned that as per the report which is available on record bearing paper No.5/2AA apparently notice was not sufficiently served yet in what circumstances the same was treated as sufficient so as to fix the next date for filing objection, as shall be evident from the order dated 06.03.2025. In response Shri Chaudhary stated that on 06.03.2025 he was not holding the court rather it was the Tehsildar (Nyayik) who was the officer who had passed the order dated 06.03.2025. It was thus put to him that in case if he was not holding the Court on 06.03.2025 then under what circumstances an under whose orders he had gone to make an inspection as stated by him which was held on 08.03.2025 wherein his pictures were also taken, which have been shown to the Court and are now part of the record of this petition. In response to the aforesaid, he could not give any answer and rather he apologized. 12. The very fact that he extended his apologies coupled with the statement which was given by him that on 06.03.2025, he had not held the Court obviously shows the sudden interest taken by him so as to without holding the Court he had visited the site in question, whereas the application moved in September 2024 could not be registered till February 2025. 13. Another aspect which is evident from the record is that the petitioner while moving the application under Sections 25 and 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 raised his grievance in respect of six gatas whereas in so far as the report is concerned, it does not relate to all the said gatas and moreover the case has been registered only in respect of Plot No.2069. 14. It is in this context that the statement given by the office becomes doubtful that once the application was moved for several gatas, the report as placed on record ought to have been given in respect of all gatas which were the subject matter of the application and then under what circumstances the officer in his wisdom could register the case only in respect of one plot and not the other without there being any material nor any observations made in any of the orders to the contrary. Thus the manner in which the orders have been passed become a cause of concern. 15. If at all there were bonafidies then the same should have been reflected in the first order itself dated 19.02.2025 that in respect of the report called for the plots and relying upon the report, the encroachment, if any was in respect of any one plot and not the other plots but no such reflection is there in the order dated 19.02.2025. 16. The registration of the case was done on 19.02.2025 as per the statement of the officer and that too strategically as this writ petition had been filed on 14.02.2025. The officer having visited the site on 08.03.2025 meaning thereby that prior thereto he had no means to know whether the encroachment were existing or not on the respective plots for which the petitioner had moved the application. In this view he could not have declined to register the case in so far as the other plots are concerned on 19.02.2025. 17. This apparently is a clear indication of complete non- application of judicial mind, dereliction of duty and also gives an apprehension that only once this writ petition was filed on 14.02.2025 and the Court had passed the order thereafter proceedings have been fudged only to present the records before the Court which have been called upon vide order dated 20.02.2025 and 07.03.2025. 18. This Court finds that the manner in which, the officer present who is also the Presiding Officer of the Court where the matter was pending, has handled the file of the case, is absolutely not satisfactory. There could be no explanation for the authority to justify that once the order had been passed by the High Court on 24.08.2024 then why the file remained pending for more then five months and only when the second writ petition i.e. instant petition came to be filed on 13.02.2025 then a week thereafter the proceeding was formally registered and that too selectively, in a half-hearted manner and without going through the material available on record. 19. The manner in which the proceedings have been held, which are of judicial/quasi judicial nature, is nothing but an eye wash. 19. The manner in which the proceedings have been held, which are of judicial/quasi judicial nature, is nothing but an eye wash. In a case where the High Court had passed an order on 24.08.2024 to consider and decide the matter expediting and it has taken the Authority five months to register the case, makes it clear that the order of the High Court has been ignored which is not an acceptable situation. 20. It is the duty of Presiding Officer to comply with the statutory mandate as well as the order passed by the High Court. Keeping the application without registering it for five months is ex facie violation of the order of the High Court. Needless to say it also is reflective of the casual manner in which the proceedings have been held by the officer. It appears that the officer concerned has no inkling as to how the proceedings have to be conducted and in turn it also raises a doubt regarding his working and ability to hold court. 21. This is not the only case, as this Court has already noticed this aspect of the matter and has raised red flags plaguing the Revenue Courts in several of its decisions i.e. Avadhesh Kumar and others Vs. District Magistrate, Lko and others ; 2022 SCC Online All 636 ,W.P. No.412 (A-227) of 2024; Mohammad Altaf Mansoor Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, 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:52394 (Doober Vs. Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others), Mohd. Ameen Vs. DDC, Bahraich ; MANU UP/4004/2024, Anand Prakash Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-C No.660 of 2025; 2025 AHC-LKO:9888, but still there has been no improvement. Time and again such cases are coming up before this Court which reflect complete neglect and apathy at the behest of the revenue officers holding court, who take this duty with extreme casualness without any sense of responsibility and completely oblivious to its consequences. 22. It is time to remind oneself that an office of a Judicial Officer is on a higher pedestal and a person holding such office should work with integrity, promptitude and diligence. Their conduct must be above board and higher as compared to other persons holding office as civil servants. 22. It is time to remind oneself that an office of a Judicial Officer is on a higher pedestal and a person holding such office should work with integrity, promptitude and diligence. Their conduct must be above board and higher as compared to other persons holding office as civil servants. Negligence and lethargy cannot be accepted in discharge of judicial duties. Under the scheme of the Revenue Code 2006, the Revenue Officers undertake judicial and quasi judicial functions and their orders are appealable and revisable as per law, hence they cannot plead ignorance or amnesty for their action. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that the explanation (whatever has been given by the officer and as noticed above) is bonafide and it is clearly reflective of dereliction of duty. 24. The Court directs that the case be registered forthwith in respect of all the gatas which are mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner and appropriate notices be issued as per law to the parties concerned the proceedings shall be taken forward and concluded within the time span as provided in the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 for such cases after affording an opportunity to the parties concerned. 25. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. 26. However, before parting it is stated that a copy of this order shall be placed before the Principal Secretary Revenue, Govt of U.P. who shall hold an inquiry to ascertain the role of the officer concerned relating to his duties and for ignoring the direction of the High Court order dated 23.08.2024 which is ex facie apparent as the order of the High Court was on record. The Principal Secretary Revenue shall also take note of several decisions which have been given by this Court and have been mentioned in para above and submit its report as to what measures have been taken in order to ensure that such blunders/debacles are not repeated, including what measures are taken to ensure prompt registration of cases so that no litigant has to run from pillar to post for getting the cases registered. The report as aforesaid shall be placed before this Court by the next date. 27. This matter shall come up before this Court only for the aforesaid purpose to consider the report called for on 12.05.2025.