Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7263 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 96 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Respondent :- The Board Of Revenue U.P., Lko. Thru. Member And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitesh Pratap Singh,Meera Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.3 and 4 is dispensed with. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 09.12.2024 which was passed by the Board of Revenue on an application preferred by the petitioner seeking expeditious disposal of his revision in terms of Rule 494 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. It is urged that the reasoning given by the Board of Revenue while rejecting the application is per se bad in the eyes of law. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference to the certain provisions duly amended in the Rules of 2016 has been misquoted and misapplied which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice and the impugned order cannot be sustained. Shri Aryavart Tiwari, learned standing counsel attempted to justify the order, however, could not dispute the fact that in the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, there are certain provisions which clearly indicate that the revision or appeal pending in such Court is to be decided within a time span as mentioned therein. In case, if it exceeds the prescribed time then the authorities are required to record reasons in writing why it is unable to decide the petition/revision/appeal. Learned standing counsel also could not dispute the fact that the revision pending before the respondent No.2 would be a revenue Court subordinate to the Board of Revenue and in such cases, the powers conferred upon the Board of Revenue in terms of Regulation 494, introduced by Chapter 50 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual is clearly applicable. Since, the petitioner had approached the Board of Revenue seeking expeditious disposal which has been rejected on misfounded grounds, this Court is of the clear opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained. Thus, the impugned order is set aside. Since, the petitioner had approached the Board of Revenue only for expedition, considering the aforesaid nature of the relief, the proceedings pending in the Court of respondent No.2 shall stand expedited and the revisional Court shall endeavour to decide the revision after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the revisional Court shall consider and decide the revision of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench