HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5505 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Prem Kant, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.9. 2. In view of the proposed order, notice to the Respondents No.2 to 8 is hereby dispensed with. 3. The captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia praying therein for the following relief:- " direct the Revisional Court/Opposite Party No.1 to decide the Revision No.00794/2024, filed by opposite party no.2 and 3 under Section 219 of U.P. L.R. Act; Baijanti Verma & another vs. Ram Prakash & others, pending before him since 30.04.2019, expeditiously within time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court." 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Respondents No.2 & 3 have filed the Revision No. 00794/2024 before the Respondent No.1 under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 but the same is pending and has not been decided till date. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vimal Kishor Singh, Premkant Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Ram Samujh And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s) 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.1 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 Respondent No.1, 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.1 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.1 since the year 2024 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 revisions. Though the said revision 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 revisions filed under the 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.1 to hear and decide the Revision No.00794/2024 filed by the Respondents No.2 and 3 under Section 219 of U.P. L.R. Act; Baijanti Verma & another vs. Ram Prakash & others, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six 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. 5505 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench