- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for impleadment of State of U. P. thorough Secretary, Revenue Department U. P. Lucknow as Opp. Party No. 4. The prayer made by the learned Counsel does commend to me for acceptance and the learned Counsel is permitted to implead the party accordingly.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the Standing Counsel. I have also been taken through the materials on record. Procrastination of Restoration application for inordinately long time has been the causative factor for instruction of this writ petition in this Court. The facts in the background are that initially, a suit was instituted by the Forest Department under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act. The journey of the suit came to an abrupt end with an ex-parte decree passed against the petitioners by means of judgment/order dated 29th August, 2001. A restoration application came to be preferred by the petitioners on 20th October, 2001 and it is this application that has been suffering protraction ever-since then in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer Nichlaul District Maharajganj.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner bemoaned the delay stating that the Restoration Application has been suffering protraction for the last four years and despite strenuous efforts made by the petitioner for its expeditious disposal, the restoration application lingered and could not be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Lastly, the learned Counsel urged that the delay in disposal is fraught with consequences detrimental to the interest of the petitioner as the Forest Department equipped with ex- parte decree may endeavour dispossession of the petitioners from the land in question. The time hallowed maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" may appropriately be invoked in the present case in view of the unconscionable delay in the disposal of restoration application. This Court sitting in the jurisdiction has been noticing with certain that the executive authorities clothed with judicial powers to adjudicate upon the matters, have often been seen to be unmindful of the consequences resulting from delayed disposal of proceedings arising out of UPZA & LR Act and the resultant delay can be ascribed to their in different approach to the quick disposal of such proceedings. It has quite often been noticed that such executive authorities equipped with judicial powers often wink at delay and insensate to the gravity of the dispute and resultant consequences, fail to strike balance between judicial works and the executive functions and instead, they give precedence to duties extracted from their executive functions. This lackadaisical approach towards judicial proceedings cannot be appreciated and there is felt need of ear-making some days on which these executive authorities may be enjoined to devote their time exclusively to judicial functions.;