A HUMBLE SUGGESTION FOR AVOIDING INORDINATE DELAYS IN A.P. HIGH COURT
It is highly commendable that Janab Nisar Ahmad Kakru, Hon. Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad made a clarion call to the Hon. Judges after unfurling the National Flag on 65th Independence Day at A.P. High Court to further speed up the process of hearing cases to ensure that justice is delivered with all the speed at their command. In this context, I would like to bring to the kind notice of the Hon. Chief Justice that one of the prime reasons for the procrastination in the dispensation of justice with a flickering hope that this issue will be given all the importance it deserves and the Chief Justice will take a serious notice of this for immediate remedial action. My own bitter experience narrated hereunder in greater detail about the inherent defect in the existing system which is mainly responsible for the abnormal delays occurring in the disposal of cases in the High Court .
I am 72 years old, a chronic diabetic having undergone heart surgery in Delhi in 2003. I have filed a Writ Petition No.30687/10 in A.P. High Court as a Party-in-Person. In the lower court, it has taken more than eight years for the disposal of the case for the acquittal of the vendor of the charge of selling Govt. assigned land. Hon. Justice Shri Nooti Ramamohana Rao was also convinced with my pleadings that my house site admeasuring 208 sq.yd was not a Govt. assigned land when it was purchased and duly Registered by the Sub-Registrar (East), Hyderabad in December, 1984 as the MRO has informed the Sub-Registar that it was Govt. assigned land after a long gap of 7 years in August, 1991. The District Registrar has stated in his sworn Affidavit that even the basic registers maintained in the year 1985 also showed that it was wet land and not a Govt. land. However, it has been acquired by the A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd in 2007 without issuing even a mandatory notice to the purchaser. If the State itself becomes a “predator”, to whom else the aggrieved can approach for the redressal of his grievance except the High Court? The Counsel for A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corpn Ltd; Shri J. Prabhakar under the aforesaid circumstances has ultimately agreed in the open court during the ‘final hearing’ for the restoration of the site to me as it is still lying vacant as the Corpn. did not have plans to take up construction there. Whereupon, the Hon. Justice in the open court directed me and Shri Mallesh, Tahsildar of A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corpn Ltd on 15-7-11 to locate my plot with the help of MRO; Hayathnagar and after marking the boundaries compliance to be reported back to him. Accordingly, his instructions were carried out and informed the same to the Hon. Judge when the case came up for next hearing on 22-7-11.
When the case has almost reached an end with only the judgment is to be delivered, it has been suddenly transferred to another Court No.23 presided by Hon. Justice Shri Ramesh Ranganathan as per the strict procedure in vogue i.e rotation of cases at every two months interval with the case back to square one. Although the case has been listed in his Court for “final hearing” again on 08-8-11, 16-8-11 and 17-8-11, he had expressed his inability to take it up as he said that he is overburdened with 1400 admission cases and can’t spare his time for “final hearing” cases despite repeated appeals..
It may therefore be seen from the above sequential events that the decision arrived at by the previous Hon. Judge has already been set in motion and when the judgment is awaited, the case has been shifted to my rude shock to another Judge to be heard by him afresh. In the intervening period of 8 months, four Judges have handled this case with no end in sight. This is one of the real factors for piling-up of cases in the High Court as the entire exercise goes on and on without giving a chance to the judges to arrive at a logical conclusion.
To remedy the present ailing system, it is strongly felt that a brief report on the stage of the case is to be obtained from Judges and cases at the final stage retained with the same judge as he is fully conversant with the case instead of transferring the cases purely as a mechanical adherence to the so called “Rule Book” and adopt a pragmatic approach..
S.S. Rao, M.Sc.(Ag.) Gold Medallist
e-mail:- samsrirao@rediff.com
9390397505
