Allahabad High Court
GOVINDversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the respondent must decide the pending revision within six months, and therefore issued a mandamus directing such disposal.
Summary
The petitioner, Govind, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondent (a revenue authority) to decide Revision No. 136 of 2025 (Narayan v. Govind) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner alleged that the revision, pending since 2025, had been repeatedly adjourned without justification, violating Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 which mandates disposal within six months of registration. The Court examined the delay and found no sufficient cause for the continued postponement. Consequently, the Court issued a direction to the respondent to decide the pending revision within six months of receiving the certified copy of the order, after affording a hearing to the parties. The petition was disposed of with the said direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent has violated Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 by failing to decide the revision within six months.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the respondent to decide the pending revision within a stipulated period.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 210
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 183(4)
Subjects
- mandamus
- revision
- U.P. Revenue Code
- procedural delay
- administrative law
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4380 of 2026
Govind
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jay Prakash Singh, Shashi Kant 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
respondents State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"(i) issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to directing the court below
i.e. respondent no.2 to decide the Revision No. 136 of 2025 being Computer No.
AG2025015000136 (Narayan Versus Govind and others) under Revision no. 79 of
2025 being computer no. AG202501500079 under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 pending before him within a stipulated period."
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision filed before
respondent no.2 is pending consideration since 2025, which is being unnecessarily
adjourned without any justifiable reasons. In view of the provisions of Rule 183(4) of
the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the revision or appeal filed before the Board of
Revenue or the Commissioner is required to be decided within a period of six months
from the date of its registration, but no efforts are being made to decide the revision,
expeditiously, so a direction may be issued to hear the parties and decide the revision,
within a stipulated time frame.
4. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon
the respondent no.2 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 six months from the date of presentation of
certified copy of this order.
September 30, 2026
Anil
(Arun Kumar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…