State authorities must adhere to statutory timelines for adjudication to prevent denial of justice and ensure prompt legal redress.

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