Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Devesh Singh And Another - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 913 of 2025
Decided On : 10-03-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks registration under u.p. revenue code. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioners claim undue delay in case registration. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court identifies procedural discrepancies by officials. (Para 6 , 9 , 12 , 16) |
| 4. court criticizes delay and lack of judicial oversight. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court orders immediate registration of all relevant cases. (Para 24) |
| 6. final order and directive for inquiry into officer's conduct. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
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 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. Again on 07.03.2025, the Court had passed the following order which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel
Judicial officers must uphold promptitude and integrity, as failure to register cases and comply with court orders constitutes dereliction of duty.
State authorities must adhere to statutory timelines for adjudication to prevent denial of justice and ensure prompt legal redress.
The limitation of four months under Section 23 of the Registration Act should not prevent the registration of court decrees, as they are eternal unless varied, modified, or set aside by a higher judi....
Judicial proceedings must follow prescribed procedures; failure to document and hear parties leads to invalid orders, undermining public trust in the justice system.
Time spent in stamp duty adjudication excluded from limitation under Registration Act Sections 23/25; registration of BIFR sanctioned scheme orders directed post-final certification as vesting comple....
Imposition of registration penalty is unjustified if delay is not attributable to the executant, as established in the Indian Registration Act and supported by case law.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code cannot adjudicate title disputes; petitioners may seek declaration of rights through a regular suit.
The court ruled that registration authorities must comply with court orders and cannot refuse registration based on previously set aside grounds.
Proper measurement and due process are essential in eviction proceedings, as statutory compliance safeguards against arbitrary actions by the authorities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
