Sheetla Prasad Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anurag Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for Land Management Committee/respondent no.2 and perused the record.

¶10

In view of the order proposed to be passed, service of notice upon the respondent no.3 is dispensed with.

¶11

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:

¶12

"(i) issue a writ order or direction to the learned Additional Commissioner (Admin) Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad to decide the Revision No.942 of 2017 (Smt. Phoolmati Devi vs. Smt. Sudama Devii and others) under Section 210 U.P. Revenue Code-2006 pending since 2017 within stipulated period."

¶13

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is respondent in the present revision bearing Revision No.942 of 2017 (Smt. Phoolmati Devi vs. Smt. Sudama Devi and others) under Section 210 U.P. Revenue Code-2006. The said revision has been filed against the order dated 27.3.2017 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer and the said revision is pending before the respondent no.2 since for the last more than nine years and the pendency of the same is creating a lot of hardship to the petitioner.

¶14

Sub-rule 4 of Rule 183 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under:

¶15

"The appellate or the revisional court shall, endeavour to finally decide the appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded."

¶16

Since, there is a legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within the period of time as provided under the aforesaid

¶17

A227 No. 1793 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

¶20

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection if the same is disposed of with the direction to the court concerned for expeditious disposal of the case within the stipulated period as to be fixed by this Court.

¶21

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, with a direction to Additional Commissioner (Admin) Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad (respondent no. 2) to decide the revision, in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, in view of the time frame provided under Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 by a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties if there is no legal impediment.

¶22

It is made clear that the Additional Commissioner concern shall decide the case on its merit.

¶23

With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

April 13, 2026 PS

¶25

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sheetla Prasad Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheetla Prasad Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam Kohli vs Virat Chandra Chaudhary

Smt. Shweta Singh vs Anil Kumar Singh

Smt. Anshu Kumari Alias Anshu vs Ramesh Chandra

Pyare Lal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue, Lko. and 20 Others

Ganga Ram vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru.. Judicial Member and 3 Others

Mahesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others