SC’s six-month judgementrule also applies to revenue courts: HC
Justice Alok Mathur passed the order on September 8 while hearing a petition filed by one Lala Singh and three others against the chairman of the Board of Revenue, Lucknow, and others. “We see no reason as to why the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court should not be extended even to the revenue courts to decide the title disputes as a substitute to the civil courts,” the court observed.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has ruled that the Supreme Court’s directive in the Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) case, prescribing a maximum six-month period for delivery of judgements by a bench, will also apply to revenue courts.
Justice Alok Mathur passed the order on September 8 while hearing a petition filed by one Lala Singh and three others against the chairman of the Board of Revenue, Lucknow, and others.
“We see no reason as to why the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court should not be extended even to the revenue courts to decide the title disputes as a substitute to the civil courts,” the court observed.
The petitioners submitted that judgment in their revision under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act was reserved on February 16, 2025, but had not been delivered till date. They sought a directive to the chairman of the Board of Revenue for a re-hearing of the case.
The court noted that in the Anil Rai case, the apex court had directed that if a reserved judgement was not delivered within three months, parties could apply for an early pronouncement. If six months elapsed without judgment, they could move an application before a higher authority for re-hearing by a different bench.
Accordingly, the high court directed the Board of Revenue to re-hear the matter and conclude arguments within two weeks from the date a certified copy of the order was produced, and to deliver judgment within six weeks thereafter.
“Let a copy of this judgement be sent to the additional chief secretary (revenue), government of Uttar Pradesh, for necessary compliance and for information to all the authorities concerned,” the court directed, disposing of the plea.
