The Allahabad High Court has clarified that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to dictate the outcome of pending adjudicatory proceedings under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In dismissing a petition seeking specific partition directions, the Court emphasized that judicial intervention must respect the statutory appellate process and not preempt the authority of quasi-judicial bodies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Prabha Rani Pandey, is a co-sharer in Plot No. 353, measuring 52.47 acres, situated in Village Mant, Pargana and Tehsil Mant, District Mathura. A partition suit was initiated by respondents 6 to 8 seeking division of the property. The trial court passed orders on 15.11.2017 and 28.09.2018 granting partition in favor of the respondents. The petitioner appealed, and the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, by order dated 26.12.2023, set aside the trial court’s orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Key Facts
- The disputed land is governed by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
- The partition suit was originally decided by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura
- The petitioner challenged the trial court’s orders before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division
- The Additional Commissioner’s order dated 26.12.2023 remanded the case for de novo hearing
- Respondents 6 to 8 have filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Circuit Bench, Agra (Revision No. 35 of 2024)
- The revision petition remains pending as of the date of the writ petition
- The petitioner seeks a specific partition outcome based on Dangoli, Pargana and Tehsil entitlements
Procedural History
- 15.11.2017: Trial court passes order in partition suit favoring respondents 6 - 8
- 28.09.2018: Trial court confirms partition order
- 26.12.2023: Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, sets aside trial court orders and remands matter for fresh decision
- Before 2024: Respondents file Revision No. 35 of 2024 before Board of Revenue, U.P., Circuit Bench, Agra
- 2026: Petitioner files Writ-B No. 2582 of 2026 before Allahabad High Court seeking mandamus
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The petitioner contends that the respondents are misinterpreting the order dated 12.01.2012 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 15327 of 1988 to deny her rightful share. She seeks a direction to partition the land strictly according to Dangoli, Pargana and Tehsil entitlements.
Respondents’ Position: The respondents argue that the matter is sub judice before the Board of Revenue and that the petitioner’s demands amount to an attempt to pre-empt the outcome of a pending statutory revision.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought three reliefs: (i) A writ of mandamus directing respondents to partition the land according to Dangoli, Pargana and Tehsil entitlements; (ii) A writ restraining respondents from misinterpreting the 12.01.2012 order; (iii) A direction to the Board of Revenue to decide Revision No. 35 of 2024 within a stipulated time.
The Legal Issue
Can a writ court issue a mandamus directing a statutory authority to decide a land partition in a specific manner while a revision petition challenging the remand order is still pending before it?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner’s rights under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act are being perpetually delayed due to inaction by the Board of Revenue. He relied on the principle that delay defeats equity and urged the Court to intervene to ensure compliance with the remand order dated 26.12.2023. He contended that the 12.01.2012 order, though not directly binding, establishes a legal precedent for entitlement calculation that must be respected.
For the Respondent/State
The Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner’s first two prayers are an impermissible attempt to dictate the outcome of a pending adjudication. He emphasized that the Board of Revenue, as a statutory appellate authority under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the revision. He further argued that the petitioner’s request to enforce a particular partition method would usurp the quasi-judicial discretion vested in the Board.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the relief sought and the stage of the pending proceedings. It observed that the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 26.12.2023 remanded the partition suit for fresh adjudication, thereby reopening the entire matter before the trial court. The revision petition filed by the respondents before the Board of Revenue is a statutory challenge to that remand order.
"The reliefs sought by the petitioner under clauses (i) and (ii) amount to preempting the orders to be passed by the respondent authorities in the pending suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950."
The Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used to direct the manner in which a statutory authority must decide a matter that is already under its consideration. To grant such relief would be to substitute the Court’s opinion for that of the statutory tribunal, which is impermissible.
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s third prayer - for expeditious disposal of Revision No. 35 of 2024 - was not contentious and was made in good faith. The Court accepted this as a legitimate request for timely adjudication, consistent with the principle of audi alteram partem and the statutory obligation to dispose of revisions within a reasonable time.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the following direction: The Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Circuit Bench, Agra, shall decide Revision No. 35 of 2024 (Dhaniram and others vs. Prabha Rani Pandey and others) by passing a reasoned order, after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to all parties, within four months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order. All other reliefs sought by the petitioner are dismissed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Writ Courts Cannot Preempt Statutory Adjudication
- Practitioners must not file writ petitions seeking specific outcomes in land partition cases while statutory appeals or revisions are pending
- The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies applies strictly under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act
- Any attempt to bypass the Board of Revenue through mandamus will be dismissed as an abuse of process
Timeliness of Statutory Appeals Is Enforceable
-
Courts may issue directions for timely disposal of pending revisions under Section 176
-
A four-month deadline is now a recognized benchmark for statutory revision disposal in land matters
-
Failure to comply may invite contempt proceedings or further writ intervention
-
Always verify the pendency of statutory appeals before filing a writ petition in land disputes
-
Focus writ prayers on procedural delays, not substantive outcomes
-
Cite State of U.P. v. Rameshwar Prasad and Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. to support the principle of non-interference in pending adjudication
