HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5486 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made oral prayer for impleading the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunda, District Pratapgarh as Respondent No.4 in this petition. 2. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the State does not have any objection, if the aforesaid prayer is allowed by the Court. 3. In view of the aforesaid oral prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, let learned counsel for the petitioner implead Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunda, District Pratapgarh as Respondent No.4 in the array of parties during course of the day. 4. Heard Sri Vaibhav Shukla,learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4. 5. In view of the proposed order, notice to Respondents No.1 to 3 is hereby dispensed with. 6. The captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia praying therein for the following relief:- "Issue a direction commanding the learned court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunda, District Pratapgarh to decide the case no.T202402570108445, under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by name of Seema Devi vs. Gangadhar and others, filed by the petitioner expeditiously, within a fixed period which may be deemed proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice." Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vaibhav Shukla, Priyanka Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Smt. Seema Devi .....Petitioner(s) Gangadhar And Others .....Respondent(s) 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a case under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by the petitioner in the year 2022 and the same is pending before the Respondent No.4 and has not been decided till date. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Section 24 (3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it has been provided that the cases filed under Section 24 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are to be decided within a maximum period of 90 days and if it is not possible to decide the said case within the said time limit, reasons for the same shall be recorded. It has further been argued that the case in question is pending since 2022 and the order-sheet of the case reflects that no reason for non disposal of the case within the time limit prescribed under Section 24 (3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been recorded. 9. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the ends of justice would be served if this Court may issue a direction to Respondent no.4 to decide the case in question, expeditiously. 10. I have heard submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the case filed under Section 24 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 bearing Case No. T202402570108445 is pending before Respondent No.4 since 2022 and has not been decided till date. I also find that the legislature itself has provided a time limit under Section 24 (3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for disposal of the cases filed under Section 24 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of 90 days. 11. In view of aforesaid reasons, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to Respondent No.4 to hear and decide the Case No.T202402570108445; Seema Devi vs. Gangadhar and others, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order provided there is no legal impediment. September 15, 2025 Renu/- A227 No. 5486 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench