HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5506 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd Nafees, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Sri Vikram Dutt, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent No.3. 2. In view of the proposed order, notice to Respondent No.4 is hereby dispensed with. 3. The captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia praying therein for the following relief:- " Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party no.2 (Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Madal, Gonda) to decide the case of petitioner pending before him being Computerized Case No.C2011080000341 (Nankau & another vs. Fakirey & another) under Section 219 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 expeditiously as soon as possible or within stipulated period of time as framed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice" 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed the Case No.C2011080000341 (Nankau & another Vs. Fakirey & another) before the Respondent No.2 under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 but the same is pending and has not been decided till date. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Nafees, Pawan Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Nanakau .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Rule 183 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the legislature itself has provided that the revision is to be decided within a period of six months and if it is not possible to decide the revision within the said time limit then reasons are to be recorded. It has further been argued that from a bare perusal of the order sheet annexed with this petition, it is crystal clear that the Respondent No.2 has not assigned any reason for non disposal of the revision in question within the prescribed time limit of six months. 6. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1 and 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued by this Court, thereby commanding the Respondent No.2 to consider and decide the revision in question expeditiously, within a fixed time frame. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the revision, subject matter of this petition, is pending before the Respondent No.2 since long and has not been decided till date. I further find that Rule 183 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 categorically provides a time limit of six months for deciding the cases. Though the said case has not been filed under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and has been filed under Section 219 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act, 1901 but nevertheless, the time limit being procedural in nature, has to be complied with in the cases filed under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 as well. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Respondent No.2 to consider and decide the Case No.C2011080000341 (Nankau & another vs. Fakirey & another) filed under Section 219 of U.P Land Revenue Act, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of service of a certified copy of this order provided there is no legal impediment. September 15, 2025 Renu/- A227 No. 5506 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench