The Allahabad High Court directed the Board of Revenue to re-hear and pronounce judgment in a long-pending revision petition within a stipulated timeframe, while reiterating the Supreme Court’s guidelines on timely pronouncement of reserved judgments. The Court emphasized that delayed judgments erode public confidence in the judicial system and must be avoided.
The petitioners approached the High Court highlighting that their revision petition under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was reserved for judgment in February but remained undecided even after six months. Aggrieved by this prolonged delay, they sought a mandamus directing the Board of Revenue to either pronounce judgment or re-list the matter for further hearing.
During the hearing, the Standing Counsel informed the Court that the case was likely to be re-heard and a date had been fixed for the same.
The Court drew attention to the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, where specific timelines and guidelines were laid down to ensure that reserved judgments are pronounced within a reasonable period. The Allahabad High Court noted, “Delay in disposal of the cases facilitates the people to raise eye-brows, some time genuinely which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system. A time has come when the judiciary itself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect and regards for the attainment of the Rule of Law.”
The Court further observed that the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Anil Rai should equally extend to revenue courts, given that they function as substitutes to civil courts in deciding title disputes.
Directing strict adherence to the Supreme Court’s guidelines, the Bench ordered that the revision petition be re-heard and arguments completed within two weeks of presenting a certified copy of its order. The judgment, it said, must then be delivered within six weeks thereafter.
Additionally, the Court directed the Revenue authorities to ensure compliance with the Anil Rai guidelines across all matters pending before them. A copy of the judgment was also ordered to be forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue), Government of Uttar Pradesh, for circulation and compliance by concerned authorities.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Lala Singh and others vs. Chairman, Board Of Revenue, Lko. and others
Case No.: Matters Under Article 227 No. - 5261 of 2025
Coram: Justice Alok Mathur
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Manish Kumar Shukla
Advocate for Respondent: C.S.C.
Picture Source :
