Allahabad High Court
SANGAM LAL YADAV SINCE DECEASED AND 2 OTHERSversusBOARD OF REVENUE UP AT PRAYAGRAJ AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The Board of Revenue must decide the pending revision within six months of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Board of Revenue (Respondent No.1) to decide Revision No.350 of 2023, which had been pending since 2023. They argued that the revision was being adjourned without justification, contrary to Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which mandates disposal within six months of registration. The Court examined the statutory time‑limit and the Board's failure to act expeditiously. It held that the Board must hear the parties and pass an order within six months of receiving the certified copy of this judgment. Accordingly, the petition was disposed with a direction to the Board to decide the pending revision within the stipulated period.
Issues considered
- Does the Board of Revenue's delay in deciding Revision No.350 of 2023 violate Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016?
- Can the High Court issue a mandatory time‑bound direction for the disposal of a pending revision under the Revenue Code Rules?
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 183(4)
Subjects
- writ petition
- revision
- Board of Revenue
- delay
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules
- administrative law
- time‑bound direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4415 of 2026
Sangam Lal Yadav Since Deceased And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Board Of Revenue Up At Prayagraj And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Yadav, Amrendra Nath Rai, Aprajit
Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, 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.350 of 2023, 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 2023, 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.
October 1, 2026
Anil
(Arun Kumar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…