Allahabad High Court

SHARMA MAURYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 11 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

Holding

The Court ordered the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate to decide the pending suit under Section 116 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously, in accordance with the mandate of Sub‑Rule (10) of Rule 109, 2016, and disposed of the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Judicial Mandal, Prayagraj, to decide a pending suit (No. 2468 of 2022) filed under Section 116 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner argued that the suit had been pending since 2022 and invoked Sub‑Rule (10) of Rule 109 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016, which obliges the Sub‑Divisional Officer to decide such suits within six months and record reasons for any delay. The Court examined the statutory provision and found that the rule imposes a clear duty on the magistrate to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Accordingly, the Court issued a direction that the respondent decide the suit without unnecessary adjournments, after hearing the parties and allowing evidence, provided no other legal impediment exists. The petition was then disposed of after the direction was given.

Issues considered

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate to decide a pending suit under Section 116 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 within a stipulated period.
Whether the Court can enforce the time‑limit prescribed in Sub‑Rule (10) of Rule 109 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for disposal of such suits.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 116
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 109(10)

Subjects

mandamus
writ petition
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
Section 116
Rule 109
expeditious disposal
Sub‑Divisional Magistrate
administrative law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16382 of 2026

Sharma Maurya
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 11 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madan Mohan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :-

"To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing to respondent no.2 i.e. Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Judicial Mandal, Prayagraj, Tehsil-Handia District-
Prayagraj to decide the Suit No.2468 of 2022 "Computerized Case No.
T20202030402468" (Tulsi Devi and others Vs. Mohanlal and others)
under section 116, Adhiniyam UP Revenue Code-2006, expeditiously
within specific period as fixed by the Hon'ble High Court."

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings
under Section 116 of U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 are pending since 2022.
It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
appropriate directions be issued to respondent no. 2 to decide the same
within a stipulated time or in a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought attention of the Court to Sub
Rule (10) of Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016,

"Rule 109. Preliminary and Final decrees (Section 117), is quoted as
under:

(10) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall make an endeavour to
WRIC No. 16382 of 2026
2

decide the suit within the period of six months and if the suit
is not decided within such period, the reason shall be
recorded."

5. In view of the provisions as contemplated in Sub Rule (10) of Rule 109
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2016, no useful purpose would be served in
keeping this petition pending.

6. The respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid
pending proceeding under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
before him, in accordance with law, expeditiously, after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as well as opportunity to
lead evidence in support of their case and without granting unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal
impediment, keeping in view of the mandate of Sub Rule (10) of Rule 109
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2016, quoted above.

7. With these observation, this petition is disposed of.

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ved Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…