Allahabad High Court
BABURAMversusBOARD OF REVENUE UP AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The Board of Revenue must decide the pending revision within three months of receiving the certified copy of this order, after affording a hearing to the parties.
Summary
The petitioner, Baburam, filed a writ petition seeking a court direction to the Board of Revenue (respondent No.1) to decide Revision No. 1752 of 2023 within a fixed time. The revision arose from an order by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, dismissing a first appeal on the ground of being time-barred, and the subsequent revision itself was also filed out of time without condonation. The petitioner alleged that the revision was being adjourned repeatedly without reason, causing the final decree of the Sub‑Divisional Officer to remain unenforced. The High Court examined the petition and found merit in directing the respondent to pass an appropriate order on the pending revision. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Board of Revenue to decide the revision within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order, after hearing the parties.
Issues considered
- What direction, if any, should be issued to the Board of Revenue to decide the pending Revision No. 1752 of 2023?
Subjects
- Writ Petition
- Revision
- Delay
- Land Revenue
- Direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 1686 of 2026
Baburam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Board Of Revenue Up And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Kumar Tyagi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Singh
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh for the
respondent no.2.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction upon respondent
no.1 to decide the Revision No.1752 of 2023, within a time frame as fixed
by this Court.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision arises
out of an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division,
Meerut, dismissing the first appeal filed by respondent no.3 on the ground
being barred by time. During the pendency of the revision, which had also
filed beyond time and the application for condonation of delay has not been
allowed till date, the final decree prepared by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Meerut is not being given effect to. The revision before the respondent no.1
is being adjourned without any rhyme or reason.
4. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of with a
direction upon the respondent no.1 to decide the pending revision, as noticed
above, by passing appropriate order, in accordance with law, after affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of three
months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
April 20, 2026
Anil
(Arun Kumar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…