Madhya Pradesh High Court Stresses On Early Disposal Of Cases In Revenue Courts, Applies Apex Court Guidelines
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has emphasized the necessity of expediting case disposals in revenue courts, extending the Supreme Court's guidelines applicable to High Courts and District Courts to include revenue courts as well. The judgment was delivered by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia in the case of Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur versus State of M.P. and Another (Writ Petition No.18743 of 2024).The...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has emphasized the necessity of expediting case disposals in revenue courts, extending the Supreme Court's guidelines applicable to High Courts and District Courts to include revenue courts as well. The judgment was delivered by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia in the case of Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur versus State of M.P. and Another (Writ Petition No.18743 of 2024).
The petitioner Kanwaljeet Kaur, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus. She requested the court to direct the respondents to decide her pending appeal within 30 days from the order in the present petition. The appeal, filed on April 22, 2021, has been pending before the Board of Revenue without any substantive progress.
The petitioner's counsel highlighted the inordinate delay in resolving the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of UP and others (Criminal Appeal No.3589/2023). The counsel argued that such prolonged pendency without any progress warranted judicial intervention for early disposal.
The petitioner also referenced the order sheets of the Board of Revenue, noting that arguments on the question of admission were heard on September 15, 2022, and the case was reserved for orders. However, no order had been passed since then.
Justice Ahluwalia acknowledged the delay and the necessity for timely disposal of cases. He referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 3173), which laid down specific guidelines for the pronouncement of judgments to avoid undue delays. The guidelines stated that High Courts should ensure judgments mention the date of reserving and pronouncing them.
Further, it was stated that Court officers should provide monthly lists of cases with reserved judgments that remain unpronounced within the month. If judgments are delayed beyond six months, parties can request the Chief Justice to reassign the case to another Bench.
Although these guidelines were primarily intended for High Courts and District Courts, Justice Ahluwalia opined that they are equally relevant for revenue courts due to the critical need for prompt case resolutions. “Same guideline can be applied to the Revenue Courts because early disposal of the case is essential and delivery of order, at the earliest after the case is heard is the requirement of law because delay in delivery of order may not only result in faiding of memory of Presiding Judge, but may also give some other impression in the minds of the litigants,” he said.
Justice Ahluwalia accordingly disposed of the petition with specific directions to ensure the swift resolution of the petitioner's pending appeal. The Board of Revenue must immediately take up the matter upon filing an application for an urgent hearing.
He stated that if the presiding officer who heard the initial arguments is no longer posted at the Board of Revenue, the case should be reassigned to another member.
Case title: Kanwaljeet Kaur versus State of M.P. and Another
Citation: Writ Petition No.18743 of 2024.