Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
1. This Writ Petition is filed in public interest seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the State of Uttarakhand to take immediate action and to make provision/provisions for adjudicating the
disputes covered under the “Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1963; the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holding Act, 1953; the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901; Public Premises Act, 1971 and Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958†and
also Sections 133, 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. and other allied Acts by the Judicial Magistrates coming from the Judicial Services and to make necessary
amendments in the concerned Acts;
(b) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the State of Uttarakhand to take immediate action for transferring all the pending cases covered under
the aforementioned Acts to the Courts of Judicial Magistrates.
2. The petitioners’ grievance in this Writ Petition is that all the aforesaid Acts conferred power of adjudication on Revenue/Executive Authorities;
the power of adjudicating disputes lie exclusively within the realm of the Judicial branch of the State; conferment of such a power on
Revenue/Executive officials, instead of Judicial officers, is not only in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, but is also arbitrary and illegal;
these Revenue/Executive officials are neither sufficiently trained nor do they have an in-depth knowledge of the laws necessary for effective
adjudication of the lis; these Revenue officials, more often than not, do not have the required expertise to adjudicate disputes, more so those in which
the Government is a party; adjudication by these officials would suffer from inherent bias; and, in such circumstances, this Court should exercise its
powers of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and direct that the aforesaid Acts be suitably amended.
3. While these submissions put forth on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. S. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel, cannot be said to be without merit, this
Court must always remain conscious of the limits within which it exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. While the object in filing the present Writ Petition may indeed be laudable, the question which would necessitate examination is whether this Court
could issue a mandamus as sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The petitioner, in effect, seeks amendment of the aforesaid Acts in such a
manner as to confer the power of adjudicating disputes, under the aforesaid enactments, on the judicial branch of the State, instead of the officials of
the Executive branch.
5. While Prayer No.1 is, undoubtedly, couched in different terms, the relief, in effect, is for a mandamus to be issued to the legislature to amend the
laws. It is well settled that no mandamus can be issued to the legislature to make law or to amend it. [Indian Administrative Services (S.C.S.)
Association, U.P. & others vs. Union of India & others, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 730].
6. Relief No.1, as sought for by the petitioner, cannot, therefore, be granted as it would amount to directing the legislature to amend the aforesaid
laws.
7. Mr. S. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, even if prayer No.1 cannot be granted, the petitioner would,
nonetheless, be entitled to prayer No.2; and the State Government should be directed to transfer all pending cases, under the aforesaid enactments, to
the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. The aforesaid enactments confer power of adjudication on the Revenue/Executive officials. The cases pending
before them, under the aforesaid enactments, can only be transferred to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate if the aforesaid laws are amended, which
again is an exercise which only the legislature can undertake, and are not matters for the Courts to direct. Prayer No.2 can also, therefore, not be
granted.
8. We cannot, however, turn a blind eye to the fact that, while clogging of cases in Courts has resulted in a huge backlog, the situation in Revenue
Courts, or before the Revenue Tribunals, is far worse. Cases in those jurisdictions are mounting day by day and, in the absence of officers being
appointed to exclusively man these institutions, very little heed is paid by the Revenue officials, now manning these Courts part-time, to the need for
expeditious disposal of cases, as they are busy discharging several other duties entrusted to them. While we do not wish to issue a mandamus to
amend the law, we hope and trust that the State Government gives its serious consideration to these issues, and considers taking measures to resolve
the problems, which litigants face in these Revenue Tribunals at the earliest.
9. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
