Judicial guidelines for timely verdicts from revenue courts emphasized, ensuring expedited decisions to uphold justice.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition is with regard to pendency of revision No.553 of 2023, computerized Case No.R 2023104600553 (Randheer Singh Vs. Anurudha Singh) under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act which is pending before Board of Revenue. It has been submitted that arguments in the said case were heard on 16.2.2025 and the judgment was reserved and even after expiry of six months the judgment was not declared and, therefore, in the present writ petition following prayer has been made:-

"(a) (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the specially O.P. No.1 to decide the Revision No.553 of 2023 bearing computerized case No.R 2023104600553 Randheer Singh Vs. Anurudha Singh under Section 333 of U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act, 1950 within 3 months.

(b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the specially O.P. No.1 to release the Revision No.553 of 2023 bearing computerized case No.R 2023104600553 Randheer Singh Vs. Anurudha Singh under Section 333 of U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act, 1950 for further argument/hearing."

3. Instructions were sought from the Board of Revenue to indicate the reasons whether the fact was correct and the matter was pending and judgment has been reserved for being pronounced. Learned Standing counsel has obtained instructions from Chairman, Board of Revenue and informed that the matter is likely to be re-heard and the next date fixed is 16.9.2025.

4. 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.

5. 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 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 j