- (1.) The provisions contained in the newly enforced Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 20061 empower the State Government, at the time of making an appointment or at any time subsequent thereto to designate Additional Commissioners, Additional Collectors and Assistant Collectors, as officers who would perform only judicial duties and would be allotted judicial business. Thereupon these officers are to exercise such powers and discharge such duties in such cases or classes of cases as the State Government may direct. A provision in that regard has been made in sub section (5) of Section 11 (for Additional Commissioners), Section 12 (for Additional Collectors) and sub section (6) of Section 13 (for Assistant Collectors).
(2.) The issue which was raised in the public interest litigation was that as a result of the abstention from work by the District Revenue Bar Association, Bijnor repeatedly, the work of the Revenue Court was suffering. Notice was issued to the President of the District Revenue Bar Association, Bijnor on 17 September 2015. On 12 October 2015, the District Judge was directed to submit a report on the grievance which was raised in the writ petition. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the District Judge submitted a report inter alia highlighting that the Revenue Bar Association was abstaining from work for trifling reasons which was noticed in the order dated 30 October 2015 in the following terms: "The District Judge, Bijnor has submitted a report dated 27 October 2015. The District Judge has noted the statement which was made before him by the District Magistrate/Settlement Officer Consolidation that lawyers had proceeded on strike for trifling reasons such as excessive rain, excessive warm weather, power supply, death of a farmer and like reasons and the members of the Bar pressurized the Presiding Officer to desist from taking up judicial work failing which the officer was boycotted. From 1 October 2014 to 30 September 2015, it has been reported that out of 242 working days in the Consolidation Courts, revenue lawyers abstained from work on 196 days. It has also been submitted that in the Court of the ADM, Bijnor between 1 August 2014 to 15 April 2015, the District Revenue Bar Association, Bijnor had given about 144 strike resolutions. As a result, despite all efforts to ensure work, the disposal of cases could not be taken up at the expected rate."
(3.) The next aspect which was highlighted in the report of the District Judge was that the Presiding Officers of the Revenue Courts were drawn from the executive. On various occasions, they are called upon to perform administrative duties including Panchayat Elections, as a result of which, work on the judicial side had suffered. Taking note of this grievance, this Court in its order dated 30 October 2015 observed as follows: "...The vast proportion of disputes before the Revenue Courts relate to agricultural land and property. It has been reported that the Presiding Officers of the Revenue Courts do not observe regular and disciplined sittings in the Revenue Courts and because of their administrative duties and law and order responsibilities, they do not get much time to devote to judicial functioning. The report of the District Judge suggests that one option is to create a separate cadre of revenue officers, who are devoted to only judicial functioning in the Revenue Courts or to appoint one or two Executive Officers in every district who can sit in the Court throughout the day and perform judicial duties.";