HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5535 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Naved Alam, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bhupendra Nanth Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 4. 2. In view of the order proposed, notice to private respondents is hereby dispensed with. 3. The captioned petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia praying therein for the following relief:- "(i) Issue an order or direction thereby commanding and directing the respondent no.1 to expedite the proceedings and decide the Revision U/S 219 U.P. Revenue Code, bearing Case No. REV/980/2018, Computerized Case No.R2018142900980 titled Umesh Kumar and another Versus Additional Commissioner Judicial Second, Varanasi Division, Varanasi and others within such time bound period as may be deemed fit and fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the private respondents have filed a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 which has been registered as Case No. REV/980/2018. It has further been contended that the aforesaid revision is pending since the year 2018 and has not been decided till date. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that an interim order is operating against the petitioner in the revision, subject matter of this petition, and therefore it is necessary that the revision may be heard and decided within a fixed time frame. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhupendra Nath Tripathi, Amit Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Abdul Haq @ Mohd. Shabir Ahamad .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue U.P., Lko. Thru. Chairman And Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court the provisions made in Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 and submits that the provision has been made for disposal of the revisions within a period of six months failing which the revisional authority is under obligation to record reasons for non disposal of the revision but in the present case, without assigning any reason the revision is lying pending since the year 2018. 7. 7. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents has very fairly submitted that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued by this Court thereby commanding the Respondent No. 1 to hear and decide the revision, subject matter of this petition, within a time frame fixed by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that the revision, subject matter of this petition, is pending since the year 2018. Further I find that Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides that the revisions are to be decided within a period of six months and if it is not possible then the reasons for non disposal of the revision shall be recorded in the order-sheet. I have gone through the order-sheet annexed with the petition and I do not find any reason recorded for non disposal of the revision in question. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 1 to hear and decide Case No. REV/980/2018, Computerized Case No.R2018142900980 titled Umesh Kumar and another Versus Additional Commissioner Judicial Second, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, provided there is no other legal impediment. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on the merits of the case. September 16, 2025 Anurag A227 No. 5535 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench