HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6542 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 1 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow to decide Revision No. 3209 of 2024 - Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Ramanand and Others, U/S 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, expeditiously. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 1 - Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection that previously petitioner has preferred a writ petition being Matters Under Article 227 No. 6151 of 2025, seeking same prayer, which petition was disposed of by means of order dated 16.10.2025, with direction to petitioner to file appropriate application for expeditious hearing under Rule 494 of Chapter 50 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue was directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three weeks. It is submitted that petitioner has again preferred present writ petition for same relief, hence present writ petition being second writ petition is not maintainable and same may be dismissed accordingly. 6. Considering the fact that this is second writ petition preferred by the petitioner for the same relief, and in the previous writ petition this Court has already passed directions, hence second writ petition is not maintainable. 7. With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. 8. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move appropriate application in the previous writ petition, if she so desires. November 10, 2025 A. Verma Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Virendra Kumar Shukla, Shyam Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. (Alok Mathur,J.) Smt. Shanti Devi .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench