'Didn't Even Dream Of Offending Dignity': DM Apologizes After Being Rapped For 'Reminding' Allahabad HC Of Legal Provision

The issue arose when the DM, in her affidavit, referred to a provision under the UP-Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which the Court interpreted as an unnecessary and inappropriate reminder of the legal provision.

Essentially, a bench of Justice JJ Munir, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning alleged encroachment on certain parcels of land (which the petitioner claiming to be Kabristan/Graveyard) in Village Taimoorpur, Tehsil (District Bijnor), sought a response from the DM regarding the nature and use of the land in question.

In compliance with the Court's order dated April 18, the DM submitted that the concerned land parcels were recorded in the revenue records as 'Kabristan' (graveyard) under Category 6-2 (non-agricultural use).

She further informed the Court that encroachments were found during inspection and that eight eviction cases had been filed under Section 67 of the UP-Revenue Code, 2006, before the Tehsildar, Sadar, Bijnor.

Following this submission, the Court called for a further affidavit, specifically seeking an update on the status of the pending eviction proceedings.

Complying with the direction, the DM filed another affidavit in accordance with the Court's order dated April 30, stating that the next date for hearing in the eviction cases was fixed for May 15, 2025.

The Court, however, took serious exception to the fact that the next date before the revenue authority was the same as the date fixed before the High Court in the PIL.

The bench observed that such coinciding of the dates in the matters being supervised by the HC would defeat the purpose of judicial supervision. It emphasised that such matters should be listed before subordinate courts or authorities at least a day or two prior to the High Court date. The bench also added that such manoeuvres ought to be avoided in the future.

Accordingly, the matter was re-listed for May 22, 2025, with a direction to the DM to file a further affidavit providing an up-to-date status of the eviction proceedings.

On May 22, the DM filed an affidavit, wherein paragraph 9 referred to Rule 67(6) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. It stated that the Assistant Collector is expected to complete proceedings under Section 67 within 90 days from the issuance of a show-cause notice, and if not, reasons must be recorded in writing.

However, the High Court took strong exception to the inclusion of this paragraph as it noted that there was no dispute regarding the applicability or interpretation of Rule 67(6) in the case, and that the Court was well aware of the legal provisions.

The Court remarked:

"This Court knows the law. This presumption is there about every Court of justice, which is a Court of law and not a lay Court... The Collector has attempted to insult this Court's understanding of the law by reminding us of the provisions of Rule 67(6)... about which there is no issue in this case."

In light of these remarks, the bench directed the DM to submit a further affidavit explaining her conduct.

On the next date of hearing, the DM filed a personal affidavit, in which she tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology and added that she "did not even dream to offend the dignity of the Hon'ble Court".

Addressing the Court's concern about the scheduling malpractice, she assured that such a situation would not arise again in the future. Taking note of her explanation and apology, the Court adjourned the matter as fresh for hearing on July 4, 2025.