Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri N.A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel. The case of the Petitioner is that in writ petition No. 88(Ceiling) 1993, rights of the Petitioners have been allowed by the High Court vide order dated 12.2. 2004. The operative portion of the order is quoted below: In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28.6.1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority(Ceiling) and the order dated 4.10.1993 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, are quashed. Since the Petitioner has perfected his right as Bhumidhar, his possession cannot be disturbed over the land in dispute. No order as to costs. Sd -/ 12.2.2004
(2.) THE Petitioner says that nearly six years have passed but the Consolidation Officer is not carving out a chak in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is running from pillar to post for getting the chak carved out. The Petitioner has moved several applications but the opposite parties have not paid any heed. The Petitioner is about 80 years of age. He is a senior citizen of this country, who has to be treated with respect and compassion. The Petitioner has stated on oath, in para -10 of the writ petition that the order dated 12.2.2004 has not been assailed in any higher Court or forum by any one, whatsoever. The matter has become final. The order of the Court should have been complied with. On 22.12. 2010, time was granted to the learned standing counsel to seek instruction in this matter. The opposite parties did not bother to give any instruction to the standing counsel. When the matter was taken up on 20.1.2011, learned standing counsel requested that further time may be allowed to them to seek instruction as to why the orders have not been complied with. The standing counsel appointed to assist this Court and plead the case of the opposite parties, have to face awkward position in the Court when the officers of the State, do not respond to the letters written by the standing counsel.
(3.) IN the present case, final orders of the High Court are available since 2004. There is no good ground for the opposite parties not to proceed in the consolidation matter, in the case of the Petitioner. The inaction of the opposite parties touches the border of contempt. Six years is a pretty long time for any final order to be carried out and complied with by the officers of the State. A duty has been cast upon the Executive, under the Constitution of India, to comply with the direction and the judgment of this Court, which is the highest Court of the land. Such apathy and indifference to the order of the Court can be taken cognizance thereof. The Court feels that such matters need to be brought to the highest officers of the executive also.;