Allahabad High Court
KRIPA SHANKARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 14 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the revision must be decided within six months as mandated by Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and directed the respondent accordingly.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a court direction to the State respondent to decide Revision No. 16 of 2025 within a specific time. The petitioner alleged that the revision had been pending for over a year, contrary to Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which mandates a decision within six months of filing. The respondent had been routinely adjourning the matter without justification. The Court examined the petition, the statutory time‑limit, and the undue delay, and concluded that the revision must be decided within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to decide the revision within six months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Issues considered
- Does the respondent’s failure to decide Revision No. 16 of 2025 within six months violate Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016?
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 183(4)
Subjects
- delay in adjudication
- revision
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Rule 183(4)
- writ petition
- administrative law
- court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4229 of 2026
Kripa Shankar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 14 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Parvesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh
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. 2 to decide Revision No. 16 of 2025 within a specific
period as fixed by this Court.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
revision filed by the petitioner is pending before the respondent no. 2 for
more than a year. Contention is that in view of the provisions contained in
Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the revision itself
ought to have been decided within six months from the date of its filing,
however, till date it is pending. Submission is that the matter is being
routinely adjourned without any justifiable reasons.
4. Having considered the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and the
considering the facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed
of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the aforementioned
revision, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the
date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 23, 2026
Ashok Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…