Consider entrusting judicial functions under UP Revenue Code to separate cadre of judicial officers: Allahabad HC to State Govt

The Allahabad High Court recently took a stern view on the adjournments in revenue cases on account of the administrative work of the state government officers who also discharge judicial duties.

The bench of Justice J.J. Munir said, "...so far as the adjournments of the case on account of administrative work are concerned, this Court makes it clear that no Administrative Officer, who discharges judicial duties involving rights of citizens can undertake administrative work at the cost of his judicial obligations".

Court, therefore, asked the state government to consider creating a separate cadre of judicial officers in the revenue department to deal with the judicial work.

"This Court makes it bold to say that if the Administrative Officers, who are functioning under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dealing with the rights of the citizens find it difficult to spare time for judicial work, it is high time that the State Government should think of entrusting judicial functions under the U.P. Revenue Code to a separate cadre of judicial officers," Court said.

The court was dealing with a writ petition pertaining to a civil dispute where proceedings were lingering on since long before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj.

The court was apprised that in the matter the opposite party was yet to file a written statement. In a report, which had been filed in pursuance of court's earlier order, the Sub Divisional Officer, Phulpur District Prayagraj stated that the case had been adjourned on a number of occasions in order to afford an opportunity to the opposite party to file a reply, which it failed to do.

The said report also stated that on some dates, the Sub Divisional Officer had not effectively heard the matter because of engagement with the administrative work or on account of Members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work.

Regarding the yet pending reply of the opposite party, the court observed, "What is required under the law is provision of opportunity to file a reply or a written statement. It is not the requirement of the law that an opposite party to a proceedings, who despite opportunity, does not come up with a reply is to be given a premium on his own wrong by adjourning proceedings indefinitely at the applicant's cost. This is what appears to have been done in this matter".

Further, regarding the cause of adjournments, the court said, "Be that as it may, so long as the present system or jurisdiction with the Administrative Officers relating to judicial matters continues, no administrative work ought to be done curtailing on judicial time".

"...Likewise, adjourning the case on a resolution by the Bar asking their member to abstain from judicial work is direct violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court," the court added.

Court directed that if members of the Bar abstain from discharging their professional duties, the Court or the Authorities concerned are required to proceed as if the party represented by the counsel is absent and pass orders, in accordance with the law.

Observing thus, court ordered the Collector, Prayagraj as well as the Sub-divisional Officer, Phulpur, District Prayagraj to submit a further report in the matter.

The matter will be next heard on March 2, 2023.

Case Title: Deep Chandra Yadav v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another