The Allahabad High Court has ruled that office bearers of Bar Associations across Uttar Pradesh will be liable for contempt of court if proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, are not concluded within the prescribed timeframe due to continuous strikes by lawyers.
The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, dealing with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, issued general directions stating that if a case is adjourned due to a strike, the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association “will be liable for contempt of this Court for making interruption to the direction in Daya Shankar’s case.”
Case Background
The petitioners, Parshuram and another, approached the High Court seeking a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Utraula, District Balrampur, to decide Case No. 7405/2022 (Parshuram and others Vs. Ramdeen and others). The case, filed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, regarding the division of holding, had been pending since November 11, 2022.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioners, Shri Vimal Kishor Singh, submitted that despite the suit pending since 2022, it had not been decided by the SDM. He argued that under Rule 109 (10) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the Sub Divisional Magistrate is required to “make endeavor to decide the said suit within a period of six months.” The petitioners prayed for a time-bound disposal of the matter.
Shri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for the State-respondents.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Deshwal referred to the Court’s previous judgment in Daya Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others
$$2023 (6) A.D.J. 181$$
. In that case, the High Court had issued detailed directions regarding the time limits for concluding various proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
The Court noted that in Daya Shankar, specific timelines were reiterated or prescribed for proceedings where the statute was silent. For instance:
- Section 24 (Boundary disputes): 3 months.
- Section 34 (Mutation): 45 days (undisputed) to 90 days (disputed).
- Section 116 (Division of holding): 6 months.
The Court observed that per the order sheet of the present case, the proceedings were pending primarily because “there is continuous strike on the part of advocates of Tehsil Utraula.” While noting that some adjournments were due to the non-availability of the Presiding Officer, the Court stated:
“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.”
The Court reiterated that under the Daya Shankar judgment, litigants whose proceedings are delayed beyond the fixed time are entitled to “directly approach this Court by filing contempt proceedings against the concerned officer.” However, in this instance, the delay was attributed to the Bar Association.
Decision and Directions
The Court disposed of the petition with a specific direction to the SDM, Utraula, to decide the petitioners’ case within six months. Regarding the delays caused by strikes, the Court held:
“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.”
Furthermore, acknowledging that the issue affects the “public at large, specifically poor litigants (farmers),” Justice Deshwal issued general directions for the entire State of Uttar Pradesh:
“…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 Shankar’s case and the party would be at liberty to file contempt proceedings against the office bearers of the concerned Bar Association.”
The Court directed the Registry to send a copy of the order to the Chairman of the Board of Revenue, to circulate it to all Revenue Authorities from the Tehsil to the Commissionerate level and ensure copies are pasted on Notice Boards.
Case Details:
- Title: Parshuram And Another vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur And Others
- Case No: Matters Under Article 227 No. 6938 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- Counsel for Petitioners: Vimal Kishor Singh, Premkant
- Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta
