Allahabad High Court
SANTOSHversusBOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the pending revision must be decided within five months of the certified copy of this order, as the delay contravenes the statutory time limit.
Summary
Santosh filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, to decide Revision No. REV/540/2019, which has been pending since 2019. The petitioner argued that under Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the revision should be decided within six months, but it has been repeatedly adjourned without justification. The Court examined the petition and the delay, finding the respondent’s inaction unjustifiable. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent to decide the revision within a period of five months from the date a certified copy of the order is presented. The petition was disposed with this direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in deciding Revision No. REV/540/2019 violates Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 requiring a decision within six months.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 183(4)
Subjects
- revision
- administrative delay
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules
- Rule 183(4)
- writ petition
- direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4056 of 2026
Santosh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Board Of Revenue, U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod Kumar Maurya, Ram Soorat
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent no. 1 to decide Revision No. REV/540/2019, within a specific
period as fixed by this Court.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
aforesaid revision filed by the contesting respondent no.2 is pending since
2019 and an interim order was granted in the revision. Petitioner being the
contesting respondent in the revision has appeared and filed his objection.
Contention is that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 183(4) of
the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the revision should have been
decided within six months from the date of its filing, however, the matter
is being adjourned without any justifiable reason.
4. Having considered the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and
considering the facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed
of with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to decide the aforementioned
revision, in accordance with law, within a period of five months from the
date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 14, 2026
Ashok Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…