Supreme Court on Tuesday 12th July 2022, sent a 60-years-old land dispute back to the Allahabad High Court after keeping the case with itself for 16 years. Interestingly, the Allahabad High Court had pronounced its verdict in this case in 2006 after hearing the matter for 31 years.
Even while the higher courts frequently sermonize the trial courts on the need for swift justice and describe it as a basic right of the litigants, it is astonishing that this case was languishing in the High Court and Supreme Court for 31 years and 16 years, respectively.
In 1964, the UP government had filed a lawsuit to reclaim 12 acres of property that were allegedly handed over to Farooqi Begum, one of the widows of the former Nawab of Rampur, Hamid Ali Khan, in 1924 as a rent-free endowment. After the Nawab’s death in 1930, his successor inherited the land, which was eventually taken over by the UP government.
In sharp contrast with the High Court and the Supreme Court, the trial court had quickly reached a conclusion. Within two years of the lawsuit’s initiation, the trial court had issued a ruling in the UP government’s favour in 1966. When an appeal was filed with the High Court, it was returned to the district judge, who recorded the appeal in 1967 and remanded the case for a new trial by the trial court four years later. The trial court yet again ruled in favour of the government in the case in 1973.
Farooqi Begum challenged the trial court’s ruling to the district judge, who in 1975 maintained the verdict that was being contested. She then appealed to the Allahabad High Court, which took 31 years to rule in favour of the government in the civil dispute. She passed away while the lawsuit was pending, and her legal successors continued the fight.
After a 16-year delay, a Supreme Court bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath resolved the appeal against the High Court ruling on Tuesday, but only to restart the six-decade-old legal dispute by returning it to the HC for further adjudication.
In the 27-page judgment, Justice Vikram Nath said, “We are of the view that the HC fell in error in not taking into consideration the relevant material and instead relying upon inadmissible evidence or evidence which had no bearing to the findings. Even the burden had been wrongly placed on the defendant/appellant. Further, the HC ought to have carefully scrutinized the evidence available on record and only thereafter arrived at a conclusion. The judgment of the HC is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the HC.”
