Allahabad High Court
RAMA SHANKAR AND 2 OTHERSversusBOARD OF REVENUE AND 8 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The Court directed the Board of Revenue to decide the pending revision within six months of the certified copy of this order.
Summary
Petitioners Rama Shankar and two others filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Board of Revenue to decide Revision No.4316 of 2025 (Jata Shankar et al. vs. Rama Shankar et al.) which had been pending since 2025. They argued that the Board’s failure to hear the revision violated Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which mandates disposal within six months of registration. The Court examined whether the statutory time‑limit could be enforced through a writ. Finding no justification for the delay, the Court ordered the Board to pass an appropriate order after hearing the parties within six months of the certified copy of the judgment. The petition was consequently disposed of with the said direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the Board of Revenue’s delay in deciding the revision violates Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
- Whether a High Court can issue a direction under a writ petition to compel the Board to decide the pending revision within a specified time
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 183(4)
Subjects
- Revision
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules
- Writ petition
- Statutory time limit
- Board of Revenue
- Delay
- Article 226
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4383 of 2026
Rama Shankar And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Board Of Revenue And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kunwar Ajay Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction upon respondent
no.1 to decide the Revision No.4316 of 2025 (Jata Shankar and others Vs.
Rama Shankar and others), within a time frame as fixed by this Court.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision filed
before respondent no.1 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.1 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…