Anarkali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10431 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Anarkali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 11 September, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:55014
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
WRIT - C No. - 8634 of 2025   
 
   Anarkali    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko And Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Lalji Yadav, Vishnu Prakash   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.      

1. Heard Sri Lalji Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Lalganj, District - Pratapgarh by which the appeal has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the court of Tehsildar, Tehsil - Lalgang, District - Pratapgarh to be decided afresh on merits as per the directions given in the said order.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the dispute in the present case pertains to the property of Ram Harakh who was the recorded tenure holder and had died. Subsequent to which, the petitioner had claimed to be entitled to the said property on the basis of a registered Will deed dated 06.02.2018. While the claim of the petitioner is contested by respondent No. 4 who is also the daughter in law of deceased Ram Harakh. Respondent no. 4 had filed an appeal before the SDM being aggrieved by the orders dated 30.06.2018, 28.09.2018 and 05.08.2018 passed by Tehsildar, Lalganj, Pratapgarh.

5. The SDM while allowing the appeal of the private respondents has duly taken into account that the appellant before him was not given an opportunity of hearing before the Tehsildar and was also of the view that the claim of the petitioner was on the basis of a registered will deed dated 06.02.2018 which was never proved before the Tehsildar. He was of the view that whenever there is a contest with regard to succession on the basis of a will, the same has to be necessarily proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and from the material on record, no such exercise was taken by the trial court and accordingly for the aforesaid reasons he had allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for deciding afresh.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the said order dated 29.07.2025 stating that the same is in violation of Paragraph No. 34(f)(1) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual stating that the judgment has been delivered after one month from the date it was reserved, therefore is liable to be set aside.

7. It is noticed that the only argument raised by the petitioner is with regard to delay in pronouncing the said judgment.

8. This Court has perused the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. Firstly it is noticed that the contains of the Manual were issued in a Government Order dated 01.07.1940 and was notified by Board on 05.09.1946. Further, this Court finds that the said Manual which contains detailed guidelines for exercise of powers by the revenue authorities, has been protected by the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 in Section 230, to the extent of those provisions which are not as conflict with the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

9. Considering the provisions of Paragraph 34(f)(1), it is noticed that "judgment shall be delivered within a reasonable time after the close of the case ordinarily this time should not exceed from one month".

10. From the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no mandate or direction for the revenue authorities to pass the judgment within one month from the date of hearing as the words itself indicate that the judgement has to be delivered within a reasonable time which ordinarily should not exceed one month.

11. Apart from the above, this Court does not find any provision for either in the Revenue Court Manual or in the U.P. Revenue Code which provide for any consequence in case the judgment is not pronounced within one month. Accordingly, this Court does not find that there is a mandate that any judgment rendered after expiry of a period of one month from the date of the conclusion of hearing would be nonest, illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the ground raised by the petitioner with regard of the impugned order is not made out and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

12. However, before the parties in the case, this Court would like to state that the judgment ordinarily should be delivered as soon as possible as provided in paragraph 34(f)(1) and the aspect pertaining to the period within which judgments for the reserved cases have to be pronounced was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 where with regard to High Courts it was directed that where judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application before the court concerned with prayer for early judgment and in case such an application is filed the same shall be listed before the said Bench within two days and when the judgment is not pronounced within six months, any of the parties would be entitled to move an application before the next superior authority/court to withdraw the said case and for being listed before another Bench for fresh arguments.

13. We see no reason as to why the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court should not be extended even to the revenue courts which decide the title disputes as a substitute to the civil courts and accordingly should adhere to the judicial discipline as provided for in the said judgment with regard to the timeline for deciding the disputes before them. The pronouncement of Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 passed in Criminal Appeals @ SLP (Crl.) No.s 4509-4510 of 2025 is as follows:-

"9. It is true, that for the High Courts, no period for pronouncement of judgment is contemplated either under the Code of Civil Procedure or the Criminal Procedure Code, but as the pronouncement of the judgment is a part of justice dispensation system, it has to be without delay. In a country like ours where people consider the Judges only second to God, efforts be made to strengthen that belief of the common man. 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. For the fault of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly. It is the policy and purpose of law, to have speedy justice for which efforts are required to be made to come to the expectation of the society of ensuring speedy, untainted and unpolluted justice.

10. Under the prevalent circumstances in some of the High Courts, I feel it appropriate to provide some guidelines regarding the pronouncement of judgments which, I am sure, shall be followed by all concerned, being the mandate of this Court. Such guidelines, as for present, are as under:

(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the court officer concerned.

(ii) That Chief Justice of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/ Readers of the various Benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that months.

(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the concerned Chief Justice shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information. Such communi-cation be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.

(iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months, from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.

(v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as deems fit in the circumstances."

14. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the matter has been remanded for a decision afresh before the Tehsildar, Lalganj who is directed to consider and decide the remand proceedings with expedition. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the said proceedings.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

September 11, 2025

Ravi/