The timely resolution of cases under the U.P. Revenue Code is mandatory, and failure to comply can lead to contempt charges against both revenue officers and Bar Association members.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Shri Vimal Kishor Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

"(i) to direct the opposite party no.1 to decide Case No. 7405/2022, Computerized Case No. T202208100307405 under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, 'Parshuram and others Vs. Ramdeen and others', pending before him since 11.11.2022, expeditiously within time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending since 2022 and till date the same has not been decided by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Though, as per Rule 109 (10) of the Rules, 2016 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, shall make endeavor to decide the said suit within a period of six months, except the reasons to be followed.

4. A request has been made that the S.D.M., Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur be directed to decide the Case No. 7405 of 2022, under section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in time bound manner.

5. This Court had occasion to consider the issue of expeditious disposal of cases under U.P. Revenue Code in the case of Daya Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 (6) A.D.J. 181, wherein a direction was issued that in case a time has been fixed in the U.P. Revenue Code or Rules framed therein, then a concerned Presiding Officer is duty bound to decide the proceedings within the time prescribed by the Revenue Code as well as Rules framed therein. This Court further prescribed the time limit for deciding the other proceedings under Revenue Code, where no specific provision has been provided under U.P. Revenue Code or Rules framed therein regarding the time, in which the proceedings has to be concluded. Paragraphs no. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of Daya Shankar's case have been quoted as under:-

"12. For the proceeding mentioned above, the legislature has provided time bound disposal for some of the proceedings but despite specific time fixed by the Code, 2006 proceeding could not be decided for a number of reasons and in most of the cases due to negligence on the part of presiding officers or due to the absence of sufficient number of presiding officers as well as the continuous strike of bar in Tehsil or Collectorate. The following provisions of Code, 2006 provide a specific time for deciding the proceedings as follows:-

(i) Dispute regarding boundaries by Sub-Divisional Officer is to be decided within three months from the date of the application as per Section 24(3) of Code, 2006 which is quoted as below:-

"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."

(ii) Mutation proceedings u/s 35 of Code, 2006 is to be decided within 45 days if mutation is undisputed and within 90 days if mutation is disputed as per Rule 34(7) of Rules, 2016 which is quoted as below:-

"34(7). The Tahsildar shall make an endeavour to decide the undisputed case of mutation within the period of 45 days from the date of the registration of the case and the disputed case of mutation within the period of 90 days and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reason for the same shall be recorded"

(iii) Proceeding for correction of record as per Section 38 of Code, 2006 is to be decided within 45 days from the date of receiving application with the report as per Rule 36(6) of Ru