Allahabad High Court
ANIL CHANDRA TRIPATHIversusTHE BOARD OF REVENUE AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The Court directed the Board of Revenue to decide the pending revision within five months, thereby enforcing the statutory time limit.
Summary
Anil Chandra Tripathi filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to the Board of Revenue to decide Revision No. 1644 of 2019 within a fixed period. The petitioner argued that the revision, filed by respondent No. 5, has been pending since 2019 despite the petitioner having filed his objection. He relied on Rule 183(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which mandates that a revision be decided within six months of filing. The Court noted the undue delay and routine adjournments without justification. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to decide the revision within five months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether the Board of Revenue has violated Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 by failing to decide the revision within six months
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandatory time‑bound direction to the revenue authority to decide the pending revision
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 183(4)
Subjects
- revision
- U.P. Revenue Code
- administrative delay
- writ petition
- time limit
- high court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4248 of 2026
Anil Chandra Tripathi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Board Of Revenue And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Balwant Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : 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. 1644 of 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 respondent no. 5 is pending since 2019
before respondent no. 1. Submission is that the petitioner who is the
contesting respondent in the revision has already 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 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. 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 23, 2026
Ashok Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…