While asking the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide a U.P. Revenue Code case within 6 months, the Allahabad High Court has held that the office bearers of the Bar Association of any Tehsil, Collectorate or Commissionerate would be liable for contempt if the proceedings under the Revenue Code could not be concluded within the framed time because of the continuous strike of the Association.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide a case under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously.

The Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held, “As the issue is effecting the public at large, specifically poor litigants (farmers), this Court issued general directions for entire U.P. that in case the proceedings under Revenue Code could not be concluded within the time framed by this Court in the case of Daya Shankar (supra) because of the continuous strike of Bar Association of any Tehsil, Collectorate or Commissionerate, then the office bearers of Bar Association would be liable for contempt of this Court for violation of direction of Daya Shanjkar's case and the party would be at liberty to file contempt proceedings against the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association.”

Advocate Vimal Kishor Singh represented the Petitioner, while Chief Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that the suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been pending since 2022, and to date, the same has not been decided by the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Considering Rule 109 (10) of the Rules, 2016, a request was made that the S.D.M., Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur, be directed to decide the Case in a time-bound manner.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment in Daya Shankar v. State of U.P. and others (2023) 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. The Court further prescribed the time limit for deciding the other proceedings under the Revenue Code, where no specific provision has been provided under the U.P. Revenue Code or Rules framed therein regarding the time within which the proceedings have to be concluded.

The Bench noted that in case the Presiding Officer failed to conclude the proceedings within the time prescribed in the U.P. Revenue Code or by this Court, then he is liable to contempt for violation of the direction issued in Daya Shankar's case, if there is no reasonable explanation to not deciding the proceedings within time fixed by the Statute as well as by the Court in Daya Shankar (Supra).

On a perusal of the order sheet, the Bench noticed that the proceedings of the Case under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were pending for the reason that there was a continuous strike on the part of advocates of Tehsil Utraula but the case was also adjourned because of the unavailability of the concerned Presiding Officer. “Therefore, it is clear that it is the strike of Bar Association of Tehsil Utraula, which is the reason for not concluding the proceedings in question. Therefore, prima facie it is the contempt committed by the Bar Association, Tehsil Utraula, not by the Presiding Officer, Tehsil Utraula”, it added.

The Bench took note of the fact that there is a specific direction to conclude the proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, within a period of six months, and there is a direction in Daya Shankar (supra) to conclude such proceedings in a time-bound manner, failing which amounts to contempt for disobedience of the general direction of this Court.

The Bench thus disposed of the petition with a direction to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur, to decide the Case within six months. “It is made clear that if the case is adjourned due to continuous strike of Bar Association of Tehsil Utraula then the office bearers of concerned Bar Association will be liable for contempt of this Court for making interruption to the direction in Daya Shankar's case”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Parshuram v. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:79732)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Vimal Kishor Singh, Premkant

Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel, Pankaj Gupta

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.