Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Coming down heavily upon a Tehsildar for more than 2,000 applications being pending before him awaiting a decision, the Delhi High Court opined that the conduct of the Tehsildar was nothing but appalling. 

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh stressed that the citizens cannot be left at the mercy of such a system and their rights be kept in limbo. "It is high time that such a lackadaisical approach is shunned away and buried nine fathoms deep," the court said.

Therefore, taking a serious view, Court directed the concerned Tehsildar (Tehsildar Rohini, North West District) to file a personal affidavit within two weeks explaining therein, the following:

a. the details of the applications pending before him along with the dates of receipt of the said applications and specifying therein the period in which they were required to be decided;

b. the reasons for the pendency of the aforesaid applications; and

c. the reasons for passing the impugned skeletal order in the instant case without assigning sufficient reasons despite the direction of this Court.

Court observed, "It is a sad state of affairs and travesty of justice that representations of the ordinary citizens of this country have been reduced to mere pieces of papers and the system moves on in its usual snail-speed, being least concerned about their grievances and consequently their applications stacked in files stay on pending for years together."

Pointing out the ramification of such acts of the public authorities, Court added that such an approach adopted by the concerned officers, who fail to discharge their public duty, has led to filing of a number of petitions before the High Court, adding to the already prevailing backlog and pendency of cases.

The above transpired in a petition filed for quashing of an order passed by Tehsildar (Rohini), North West District and seeking a direction to him for mutation of 1/4TH share of an agricultural land in petitioner's name. 

Court was informed that an application for mutation of the property in question had been filed before the concerned Tehsildar on 21st March, 2022 but the same was not decided by him. 

Petitioner's counsel had further apprised the court that despite court's clear order in another writ petition, concerning the same issue, to pass an appropriate order on the aforesaid pending application in accordance with the law, the Tehsildar passed an order without application of mind and assigning any reasons, merely stating that the mutation process had ceased in light of the new Land Pooling Policy.

Taking into consideration the casual approach of the concerned Tehsildar, Court had asked the concerned Tehsildar to present before the court on the next date of hearing to explain the reasons and circumstances for passing the impugned Order de hors reasoning.

However, on the next date, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners apprised the court of the huge pendency of applications before the concerned Tehsildar.

Case Title: Smt Usha Rani & Anr v. Union of India & Ors