HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5573 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. 2. In view of the order proposed, notice to Respondents No.2 to 8 is hereby dispensed with. 3. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia praying therein for the following relief: "(I) Direct the opposite party no.1 to decide the Revision No.380/2025 (Computerized Case No.C202504000000380 (Kitabul Nishan Versus Sakir Khan and others) u/s 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, within any stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. ii. Issue any other order or direction in the nature and manner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iii. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Respondents No.2 to 8 have filed a Revision No.380 of 2025 before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya and the said revision is lying pending since February, 2025. It has further been contended that in the revision in question, an interim order had been passed which is being enjoyed by Respondents No.2 to 8 and petitioner is running from pillar to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Sabhajeet Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sakir Khan .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s) post for disposal of the said revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that under Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, there is provision that the revision filed under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 shall be decided within a period of six months. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has very fairly submitted that the ends of justice would be served, if a direction is issued by this Court thereby commanding Respondent No.1 to consider and decide the revision in question, expeditiously, within the time frame fixed by this Court. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that inspite of there being a specific provision under Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the revision filed against the petitioner is lying pending since February, 2025. 8. Accordingly, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.1 to hear and decide the Revision No.380/2025 (Computerized Case No.C202504000000380 (Kitabul Nishan Versus Sakir Khan and others) u/s 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him, provided there is no legal impediment. 9. Needless to say that this Court has not adjudicated upon merits of the case. September 17, 2025 V. Sinha A227 No. 5573 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench