Disposed¶17

Chaitoo @ Ram Charitra v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman and Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2026A227/547/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Article 227; Chaitoo @ Ram Charitra v. Board of Revenue U.P.; direction for expeditious disposal; Section 333 U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act; Revision No. REV/183/2019 (R 2019046800183); Narendra Bahadur and Others Vs. Chaitoo and Others; six-month time limit from production of certified copy; bar on unnecessary adjournments; notice to private respondents dispensed with; Alok Mathur, J.; decided February 9, 2026; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 1 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow to decide Revision No. REV/183/2019 expeditiously, within six months from production of certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. ¶17

Chaitoo @ Ram Charitra vs Board of Revenue, U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No. 1 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow should be directed to consider and decide Revision No. REV/183/2019 (Narendra Bahadur and Others Vs. Chaitoo and Others) under S. 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act in a time-bound manner.

¶13

Court's answer

Respondent No. 1 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow is directed to decide Revision No. REV/183/2019 (Computerized Case No. R 2019046800183) - Narendra Bahadur and Others Vs. Chaitoo and Others, U/S 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, expeditiously, within six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶11

Key takeaways

Parties to the case shall cooperate in expeditious disposal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments; the Court concerned shall not grant such adjournments except in exceptional circumstances.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 547 of 2026, decided February 9, 2026 by Alok Mathur, J. — Chaitoo @ Ram Charitra v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow and others. Petitioner sought a direction to respondent No. 1 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow to decide Revision No. REV/183/2019 (Computerized Case No. R 2019046800183), Narendra Bahadur and Others Vs. Chaitoo and Others, under S. 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, expeditiously. Without entering into the merits, the Court directed the Board of Revenue to decide the revision within six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment; parties were directed to cooperate in expeditious disposal and not to seek unnecessary adjournments, which the Court concerned shall not grant except in exceptional circumstances. Notice to private respondents was dispensed with. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 547 of 2026

¶3

Chaitoo @ Ram Charitra

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Vijay Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Mohan Singh
Court No.- 5

¶9

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

¶11

In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶12

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 1 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, to decide Revision No. REV/183/2019 (Computerized Case No. R 2019046800183) - Narendra Bahadur and Others Vs. Chaitoo and Others, U/S 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, expeditiously.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 1 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, respondent no. 1 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, is directed to decide Revision No. REV/183/2019 (Computerized Case No. R 2019046800183) - Narendra Bahadur and Others Vs. Chaitoo and Others, U/S 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, expeditiously, say within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

It is further directed that the parties to the case shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Court concerned, except in exceptional circumstances.

¶17

With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶18

February 9, 2026 A. Verma

¶19

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chaitoo @ Ram Charitra v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaitoo @ Ram Charitra v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman 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

Ishwardeen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. , Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Shiv Kumar vs Additional Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Others

Mushir Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and 5 Others

Vishwanath Singh and 2 Others vs Up Ziladhikari (Judicial), Tehsil Haidergarh, Barabanki and Another

Pawan Kumar Shukla vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Sohawal, Faizabad and Others

Ghanshyam vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Shrawasti and 2 Others