Allahabad High Court

RAJNEESH RANJANversusBANKEBIHARI AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

Holding

The Court directs the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate to decide the pending suit expeditiously, without unnecessary adjournments, and disposes of the petition.

Summary

Petitioner Rajneesh Ranjan filed a writ petition seeking a court order directing the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Koraon, Prayagraj, to decide a pending partition suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a short, fixed period. The petitioner relied on Sub‑Rule (10) of Rule 109 of the U.P. 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 whether it could issue such a direction and found that the statutory provision supports an expeditious disposal. Accordingly, the Court directed the SDM to decide the suit promptly, without unnecessary adjournments, after hearing both parties, and disposed of the writ petition. The order emphasizes adherence to the statutory timeline and the need to prevent irreparable loss to the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can direct the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate to decide the pending partition suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a stipulated time.
Whether the provision of Sub‑Rule (10) of Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 renders the writ petition unnecessary.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 116
U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 109(10)

Subjects

partition suit
Section 116
U.P. Revenue Code
Rule 109
expeditious disposal
writ petition
status quo

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18968 of 2026

Rajneesh Ranjan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

Bankebihari And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay
Counsel for Respondent(s) :

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 :-

"(a). issue an order or direction, directing the direct the Sub Divisional
Magistrate Koraon District Prayagraj to decide the partition Suit
No.(Original Case No. T-202602030902638 of 2026, Bankevihari Versus
Rajneesh Ranjan Revenue and others) under section 116 U.P. Code 2006
within short span of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, further prayed
that Hon'ble Court passed status quo order on disputed Arazi No./ Gata
No. 11 area 0.5710hectare, till the disposal of partition suit in the interest
of justice, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and
injury"

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings
under Section 116 of U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 are pending
consideration. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that appropriate directions be issued to Sub Divisional
Magistrate Koraon District Prayagraj 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
WRIC No. 18968 of 2026
2

under:

(10) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall make an endeavour to
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 Sub Divisional Magistrate Koraon District Prayagraj 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 14, 2026
Rishabh

Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…