# Lala Singh & Ors v. Chairman Board of Revenue, Lko & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 618
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-08
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 5261 of 2025
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lala-singh-ors-v-chairman-board-of-revenue-lko-ors-53942
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Arguments in 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

Head Notes
The Constitution of India,1950-Article
226;
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950Section 333- 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- Matter be re - heard and the
arguments completed within two weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced before the court concerned
and the judgment be pronounced within a
period
of
six
weeks
thereafter,
in
accordance with law- Petition disposed.

Held- Direction issued to the authorities to
follow the directions of Supreme Court in the
case of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC
318 in deciding the disputes before them. (E-15)
(Para 5 to 7)

Case Law Cited
Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India,1950; The Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,1950
List of Keywords
Judgment not pronounced within a period of six
months; Parties entitled to move application;
For being listed before another Bench;

Case Arising From
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

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar
Srivastava, Manish Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

## Text

618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to remain available with the applicant to
seek redressal against the award. As such,
the effect of the order passed assumes
significance while determining the aspect
of maintainability and the said aspect
cannot be determined by mere reference to
the fact as to whether the order has been set
aside or not.

17. This Court in Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited Vs. M/s V.L.S. Diesel
Engine
Sales
&
Services
:
2025:AHC:9344-DB,
wherein
an
application under Section 34 of the Act was
dismissed for non-compliance of provisions
of Section 19 of the MSMED Act, after
referring to judgment in the case of
Chintels India Limited (supra), came to
the following conclusion:

"15. So far as the plea raised
pertaining to the non-maintainability of the
appeal by relying on the judgment in the
case of Hindustan Copper Ltd. (supra) is
concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Chintels India Ltd. (supra),
while dealing with the said aspect in a case
where the application under Section 34 of
the Act was dismissed on the ground of
limitation, referring to "effect doctrine",
came to the conclusion that the "effect
doctrine" is part and parcel of statutory
provision for appeal under Section 37 of
the Act and the express language of Section
37(1)(c)
resulting
in
dismissal
of
application on ground of purported noncompliance of a provision, needs to be
considered on par with dismissal on merits.
The plea raised, apparently, has no
substance as, in the case of Hindustan
Copper Ltd. (supra), the dismissal was on
account of lack of territorial jurisdiction."

18. In the present case, it would be
seen that the Commercial Court, based on
the application made essentially for the
purpose of placing on record the order
passed by the NCLT has, by referring to
certain provisions of the Code, come to
the conclusion that the Court did not have
the jurisdiction to hear and decide the
matter, closed the proceedings for lack of
jurisdiction and ordered for return of the
application. The order passed returning
the
application
without
indicating
alternative forum under the Code, which
factually does not exist, seals the fate of
the application once and for all, therefore,
the same amounts to refusing to set aside
the award impugned under Section 34 of
the Act.

19. In view of the above discussion,
based on the 'effect doctrine' as laid down
in the case of Chintels India Limited
(supra), we do not find any substance in
the preliminary objection raised by counsel
for the respondents pertaining to the
maintainability of the appeal under Section
37 of the Act.

20. Consequently, the objection is
overruled.

21. List the appeal for further
proceedings on 23.09.2025, as fresh.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 618
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5261 of 2025

Lala Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chairman Board of Revenue, Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents
9 All. Lala Singh & Ors. Vs. Chairman Board of Revenue, Lko & Ors.
619
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Manish Kumar
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Arguments in 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

Head Notes
The Constitution of India,1950-Article
226;
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950Section 333- 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- Matter be re - heard and the
arguments completed within two weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced before the court concerned
and the judgment be pronounced within a
period
of
six
weeks
thereafter,
in
accordance with law- Petition disposed.

Held- Direction issued to the authorities to
follow the directions of Supreme Court in the
case of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC
318 in deciding the disputes before them. (E-15)
(Para 5 to 7)

Case Law Cited
Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India,1950; The Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act,1950
List of Keywords
Judgment not pronounced within a period of six
months; Parties entitled to move application;
For being listed before another Bench;

Case Arising From
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

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar
Srivastava, Manish Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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.
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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 reheard 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 eyebrows, 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
9 All. Pooran Lal Vs. Saurabh Kumar
621
judgment is reserved and is pronounced
later, a column be added in the judgment
where, on the first page, after the causetitle, 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 communication 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."

6. In light of the above, let the matter
be re - heard and the arguments completed
within two weeks from the date a certified
copy of this order is produced before the
court concerned and the judgment be
pronounced within a period of six weeks
thereafter, in accordance with law.

7. We further direct the authorities to
follow the directions of Supreme Court in
the case of Anil Rai (supra) in deciding
the disputes before them.

8. Let a copy of this judgment be sent
to Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue),
Government of Uttar Pradesh for necessary
compliance and for information to all the
authorities concerned.

9. With aforesaid observations and
directions the petition stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 621
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9600 of 2025

Pooran Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
Saurabh Kumar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gaurav Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent: