Caveat Procedure In Board Of Revenue Faulty: Allahabad High Court Issues Broad Guidelines

The Allahabad High Court has issued broad guidelines for issuing notice on caveats in the Board of Revenue in the State of U.P.

Noticing the hassles in cases where outstation counsels are involved, Justice J.J. Munir observed

“We are of opinion that in order to avoid many a possible hassle, an outstation Counsel, appearing in the matter, may be required by the Board to have a counterpart of his, resident at the station where the Bench of the Board is located, that is to say, the Bench where the caveat is lodged. Alternatively, apart from other particulars, such as e-mail, a WhatsApp mobile number, the learned Counsel, when lodging a caveat, who comes from outstation, must be required to furnish an e-mail address, declaring that on the said address, he can be heard through videoconferencing on facilities to be specified by the Board, such Cisco Webex, Google Meet or NIC's Bharat VC, etc., whichever may be available to the Board, where the caveat is lodged.”

Petitioner approached the High Court against ex-parte injunction granted by the Board of Revenue in a case where he had already filed a caveat. It was argued that despite caveat, no notice was served on him, no copy was provided and the interim stay was granted ex-parte.

Noting that no notice is served upon the counsel for revisionist by the registry of the Board of Revenue in cases where caveat has been filed and that the Divisional Clerk makes an endorsement on the file just a day before it's sent before the Board for hearing, the Court observed that the procedure was faulty.

“What appears to ail the procedure in the Board regulating caveats is that once a caveat is marked, the rules or practice, whatever these are, in force or prevalent in the Board of Revenue, do not require the papers of the proceedings to be returned to learned Counsel and secure an endorsement from the learned Counsel for the caveator regarding service.”

It was observed that in case of outstation counsels, a week's time is the minimum gap required between sending the caveat and the date on which the matter can be heard. It held that in case of urgent matters, such a practise of serving outstation counsels by post, may prove to be destructive to the rights of the party approaching the Board of Revenue and therefore, they must provide his e-mail address, his mobile phone number, including a WhatsApp number, if available, to convey urgent information to him.

“If urgent information is conveyed through e-mail, mobile messaging, WhatsApp or conventional methods, proof thereof in the form of a screenshot, printed on paper, must be appended with the papers of proceedings to be instituted in Court, and, certainly, before they are taken up for admission/ orders on the stay matter,” observed the Court.

Issuing further guidelines on there being a local counsel for an outstation counsel, the Court held that the Board of Revenue may make necessary changes in practise in accordance with its rules maintain a minimum level of fairness to serve the caveator before hearing. It also observed that the responsibility to check the website and case status lies on the counsel for caveator also.

“It is made clear that this order issues broad guidelines, that may be implemented by the Board in such manner of detail, as found advisable according to existing rules in force in the Board regulating their judicial business, and the available infrastructure. The rules, if require amendment, may also be considered by the Board or the State Government, as the case may be.”

Accordingly, the case was disposed of.

Case Title: Tribhawan Goyal v. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - B No. - 1332 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order