Allahabad High Court
SAROJA YADAV AND ANOTHERversusBOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AT ALLAHABAD AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, Saroja Yadav and another, filed a writ petition seeking a court direction for the Board of Revenue to decide Revision No.1061 of 2026 under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a time frame set by the court. They alleged that the revision filed by respondent No.5 was time-barred and that the respondent lacked locus to maintain it. The court noted that the petitioners had not raised any objection to the revision's maintainability and had not been diligent in pursuing the matter before the revenue authority. It further observed that the petitioners approached the court for expediting the proceedings despite their own inaction. Consequently, the court held the writ petition to be misconceived and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- Whether the revision filed by respondent No.5 is barred by time under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
- Whether respondent No.5 has locus standi to maintain the revision
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 210
Subjects
- writ petition
- revision
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Section 210
- maintainability
- time-bar
- locus standi
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4421 of 2026
Saroja Yadav And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents State and Sri Prem Bahadur Singh, holding brief of
Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla for the Gaon Sabha.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent no.1 to decide Revision No.1061 of 2026, under Section 210
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within a time framed as fixed by this
Court.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the revision
filed by respondent no.5 is barred by time and he has no locus to maintain
the said revision. He states that a suitable direction may be issued to get
the revision decided, expeditiously.
4. On a specific query being made by the Court that whether any
objection has been filed by the petitioners, who are the contesting
respondents in the said revision regarding its maintainability and locus of
the respondent no.5, he stated that no such objection has been filed till
date. Despite the fact that the petitioners themselves have not been
vigilant in pursing the matter before the respondent no.1, they have
approached this Court for expediting the proceedings of the aforesaid
revision.
WRIB No. 4421 of 2026
2
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, the present writ petition is misconceived
and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
October 1, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…