Sarvjeet vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru. Judicial Member and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sarvjeet vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru. Judicial Member and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.1 (Board of Revenue, U.P.) to consider and decide Revision No. 47/2012-13, Computerized Case No. R-201216310048965 (Raj Kumar versus Budhaee Ram and others) most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, preferably within six months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment; the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Board of Revenue, U.P. (opposite party/respondent No.1) should be directed to decide Revision No. 47/2012-13, Computerized Case No. R-201216310048965 (Raj Kumar versus Budhaee Ram and others) under Section 219 of the U.P.L.R Act, expeditiously within a stipulated period fixed by the Court.

Court's answer

Taking note of Para 458(2) of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, under which an appeal or revision should preferably be decided within six months, and considering that the revision is pending since 2013 causing great hardship and mental agony to the petitioner (stated age about 61 years), the Court held that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending.

Ratio / Principle

The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decide Revision No. 47/2012-13, Computerized Case No. R-201216310048965 (Raj Kumar versus Budhaee Ram and others) most expeditiously.

Key takeaways

The decision of the revision is to be made after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party.ratio¶16
The revision is preferably to be decided within a period of six months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment.ratio¶16
The Court made clear that it had not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH), Saurabh Lavania, J. — Matters Under Article 227 No. 2641 of 2026, decided May 15, 2026. Sarvjeet v. Board of Revenue, U.P. & others. Petition under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Board of Revenue, U.P. (respondent/opposite party No.1) to decide Revision No. 47/2012-13, Computerized Case No. R-201216310048965 (Raj Kumar versus Budhaee Ram and others) under Section 219 of the U.P.L.R Act, pending since 2013. Taking note of Para 458(2) of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual (appeal or revision preferably to be decided within six months) and the hardship and mental agony suffered by the petitioner, stated to be aged about 61 years, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the revision most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, preferably within six months from the next date fixed, if there is no other legal impediment. Notice to the private respondent(s) was dispensed with. The Court expressly did not examine the case of either party on merits, leaving the Authority free to decide strictly in accordance with law.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2641 of 2026

Sarvjeet

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Board Of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru. Judicial Member And 4 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 7

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel.

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the privaterespondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-

"A. Direct the opposite party no.1 i.e. Board of Revenue U.P Lucknow through its judicial member to decide the Revision no. 47/2012-13, Computerized Case No. R-201216310048965 namely Raj Kumar versus Budhaee Ram and others under section 219 of U.P.L.R Act, expeditiously within a stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."

Taking note of Para 458(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, as per which, an appeal or revision should preferably be decided within a period of six months, however, in the instant case, the revision is pending since 2013 and on account of pendency of the same, the petitioner, as stated, who is aged about 61 years, is suffering great hardship and mental agony, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the Revision no. 47/2012-13, Computerized Case No. R- 201216310048965 namely Raj Kumar versus Budhaee Ram and others most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

6.It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

7.With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

May 15, 2026 Preeti

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench