Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SANJEET SINGH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND 12 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court directed the Board of Revenue to decide the pending review application within three months, thereby granting the writ of mandamus.

Summary

The petitioners, who had purchased disputed land, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue to decide a pending review application (No. 4631 of 2025) filed under Section 220 of the U.P. Revenue Code. They argued that the earlier revision was dismissed due to the death of the revisionist, and they could not file a substitution application within the limitation period because they were unaware of the pending case. The State’s standing counsel supported the petition, stating that the review should be decided expeditiously by the appropriate authority. The Court held that the Board of Revenue must pass an appropriate order on the review application after hearing all parties. Accordingly, the petition was disposed with a direction to the Board to decide the review within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, is obligated to decide the pending review application under Section 220 of the U.P. Revenue Code within a stipulated period.
  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the Board to act on the review application.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • mandamus
  • review application
  • land revenue
  • U.P. Board of Revenue
  • statutory limitation
  • court direction

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - B No. - 2002 of 2026

Sanjeet Singh And 4 Others
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of Up And 12 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav, Divyansh
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.

Court No. - 55
                     HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents and Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondent Gaon Sabha.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:

     "Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
     pleased to command the respondent No. 2/The Board of
     Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, to consider and decide the review
     application no. 4631 of 2025, Computerized Case No.
     R20251359004631 (Sanjeet Singh and other Vs. Mahfooz
     Khan) filed U/s. 220, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, on 09.10.2025
     in Revision No. 230 of 2021, Computerized Case No.
     R2021135900230 (Mahfooz Khan Vs. Masood Khan), U/s 219
     of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901, forthwith, within stipulated
     period as fixed by the Hon'ble Court."

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
aforesaid revision was dismissed as having abated by the order of
respondent no.2, dated 27.05.2025, as on the death of revisionist no
substitution application had been filed. The petitioners are the purchasers
of the land in dispute from the revisionist. As they had no knowledge
about pendency of the aforesaid revision, as such, no substitution
application could be filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
Petitioners moved a recall/review application in the aforesaid revision
                                                                                            WRIB No. 2002 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    which is pending since 09.10.2025. As the contesting party is Gaon
                                    Sabha, which is already represented through its panel lawyer, the
                                    aforesaid recall/review application can be decided by the respondent
                                    no.2.

                                    4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the aforesaid recall/review
                                    application shall be decided by the concerned authority, in accordance
                                    with law, expeditiously.

                                    5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with
                                    direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the aforementioned
                                    recall/review application filed by the petitioners, by passing appropriate
                                    order, in accordance with law, after hearing all the concerned parties,
                                    within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified
                                    copy of this order.



                                                                                             (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Ashok Kr.




Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.