IAS officer Jasjit Kaur, District Magistrate of Bijnor, recently found herself facing serious criticism from the Allahabad High Court. She was summoned for submitting an affidavit that the Court viewed as an “attempt to insult” its understanding of the law.
The controversy began during a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) hearing related to alleged encroachments on graveyard land in Village Taimoorpur, District Bijnor. The petitioner claimed the land was a ‘Kabristan’. The Court had asked the DM to respond with details about the land's status.
In her first affidavit dated April 18, Kaur confirmed that the land was listed in revenue records as a graveyard under Category 6-2 (non-agricultural). She also mentioned that encroachments were found and eight eviction cases were already pending under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006.
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Acquits Death Row Convicts; Says ‘Last-Seen Theory’ Not Enough Without Prima Facie Case
She later submitted another affidavit in compliance with the Court’s April 30 order, stating that the next hearing in these eviction cases was scheduled for May 15, 2025. The High Court noticed that this date clashed with its own hearing date for the PIL.
"Such scheduling undermines judicial supervision,"
the bench observed, stressing that subordinate court hearings must precede High Court dates to maintain effective oversight. The Court directed that such instances must not recur.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Seeks State's Reply on Plea to Control Movie Ticket Prices
The matter was re-listed for May 22, with orders for the DM to provide a fresh status update on the eviction proceedings.
In the affidavit submitted on May 22, paragraph 9 referred to Rule 67(6) of the UP Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which mandates the Assistant Collector to conclude eviction proceedings within 90 days of issuing a show-cause notice.
The High Court strongly objected to this inclusion, noting:
"This Court knows the law. The Collector has attempted to insult this Court’s understanding by reminding us of Rule 67(6)... which is not even disputed in this case."
Read Also:- Wife Can Seek Maintenance Later Despite Earlier Waiver in Mutual Divorce: Kerala High Court
The bench saw this as an unwarranted explanation, implying the Court lacked legal knowledge. It directed the DM to file another affidavit explaining her conduct.
On the following date, the DM submitted a personal affidavit offering an "unconditional and unqualified apology." She wrote that she “did not even dream to offend the dignity of the Hon’ble Court.”
She also gave an assurance that such scheduling conflicts would not happen again. Considering her explanation and sincere apology, the Court adjourned the matter for fresh hearing on July 4, 2025.
