HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3930 of 2025 Behat Bar Association .....Petitioner(s)

Versus District Judge, Saharanpur And Another .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Mishra Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Anay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The instant Public Interest Litigation has been preferred for following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to transfer back all the transfer cases from Gram Nyayalaya, Behat to Civil Judge (Junior Division), Saharanpur and Gram Nyayalaya may be allowed to accept the civil suit for cancellation of deeds."

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the entire action has been taken by the respondents in view of the dictum of this Court in Siya Dulari v. Awadh Naresh, (2024) 164 RD 612. He also makes a statement at Bar that till date the dictum in Siya Dulari has not been upset by the higher courts. As such it is submitted that no interference is required in the instant matter.

4. Heard rival submissions, perused the record and respectfully considered the judgment cited at Bar. For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgment in Siya Dulari (Supra) is reproduced as under:-

".........40. Be that as it may, given the fact that it has been held that a civil court would

have jurisdiction in the matter, the aspect that whether it is the civil court or the Gram

Nyayalaya would have the jurisdiction in the present case, is now being considered.

41. Right to purchase of property, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is referable to a right flowing out of an agreement to sell. Subject to the prescribed pecuniary jurisdiction, suits for specific performance of such instruments would be covered by the jurisdiction so conferred on the Gram Nyayalaya. A suit for cancellation of a sale-deed, on the other hand is not referable to a right to purchase of property, inasmuch as, in such a case, the plaintiff may or may not seek an ancillary relief of specific performance. It is accordingly held that the Gram Nyayalaya had no jurisdiction in respect of the suit in question.

42. It is important to mention here that an appeal against any judgment or order of the Gram Nyayalaya lies before the District Court subject to the pecuniary limits specified. As reflected in the aforementioned order dated 1.10.2022 passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, the valuation of the suit was made at Rs. 390/- which was affirmed to be correct by the court in its order dated 24.10.2019. Therefore, no appeal would lie against the aforesaid decree, which anyway has been held to be without jurisdiction.

43. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that for purpose of ascertaining the nature of cases that would be covered by Part I of the Second Schedule of the Act, 2008, it is required to be seen whether the special procedure prescribed in the Act, 2008 would be appropriate for effective adjudication, or, whether the detailed procedure prescribed in the CPC would be appropriate, does not appear to be correct given the scheme and the objects of the Act, 2008. Presently, under the Rules of 2009, only those matters of valuation up to Rs.25,000/= can be entertained by the Gram Nyayalaya. Since maintainability of appeals before the District Court against the judgments and orders of the Gram Nyayalaya in civil cases has been restricted on the basis of valuation as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Act, 2008, such restricted matters would, generally, deserve to be given a quietus. However, where there is a failure of justice, no one is precluded from availing judicial remedies as indicated in sub-section (6) of Section 34. With regard to mat