HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5523 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. In view of the order proposed, notice to Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 is hereby dispensed with. 3. The captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia praying therein for the following reliefs:- "(i) issue a direction to the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division Ayodhya to decide the pending Revision No. 691 OF 2022 (COMPUTERIZED CASE NO. C202204000000691) under section 219 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 “Krishna Devi & others Versus Dharmanand & others" since 24.5.2022, expeditiously within stipulated period as early as possible." 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 had filed Revision No. 691 of 2022, arising out of mutation proceedings, before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division Ayodhya but the said revision is pending since the year 2022 and has not been decided till date. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the legislature itself had provided under Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 that the revisions filed under the Act of 2006 may be decided within a Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Swadha Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dharma Nand .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s) period of six months and if it is not possible then the concerned authority shall record reasons for not doing so but in the present case, without assigning any reason, the revision is pending since the year 2022. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 and 2 has very fairly submitted that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued to Respondent No. 2 thereby commanding him to hear and decide the petitioner's revision within a time frame fixed by this Court. 7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that the revision filed by the Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 is pending before Respondent No. 2 since year 2022. I further find that Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 very categorically provides that the revisions are to be decided within a period of six months and if it is not possible then concerned authority shall record reasons in the ordersheet for non disposal of the revision. 8. In the present case, perusal of the order-sheet does not reflect that any such reason has been recorded. 9. Be that as it may, the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued to Respondent No. 2 to hear and decide the revision expeditiously. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to hear and decide Revision No. 691 of 2022, Krishna Devi and Others Vs. Dharmanand and others, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of service of certified copy of this order, provided there is no legal impediment. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on the merits of the case. September 16, 2025 Anurag A227 No. 5523 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench