HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6975 of 2025 Court No. - 22 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Heard Shri Shiv Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned court below i.e. Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow/ opposite party no.1 to decide the case No. REV/133/2010-2011, Computerized Case No. R-201005190043000 'Chetram Vs. Chhedilal and others' under Section 219 U.P. L.R. Act, 1901 expeditiously within the stipulated time as provided by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his revision is pending since 2010 and the same has not been decided by the Board of Revenue, therefore a direction may be issued to decide the revision of the petitioner in the time bound manner. 4. However, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that the revision was initially dismissed on 20.10.2010, subsequently a recall application was filed, therefore the petitioner was himself negligent in pursuing the proceedings. 5. From the perusal of record, it also appears that the present revision Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Shanker, Lakkhi Chand Tyagi, Man Singh Yadav, Pradeep Saran Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Chetram .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman And Others .....Respondent(s) was dismissed on 20.10.2010 and after more than 10 years the petitioner has filed restoration application, which was finally allowed, but the petitioner has not filed any order sheet showing the delay on the part of Board of Revenue in deciding the revision of the petitioner. Therefore, no direction can be issued as record does not show any negligence on the part of Board of Revenue, however, it is expected that the Board of Revenue will conclude the proceeding of Revision No. 133/2010-11 'Chetram Vs. Chhedilal and others' as expeditiously as possible in the light of the judgment in the case of Daya Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 (6) A.D.J. 181. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. December 2, 2025 Muk A227 No. 6975 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench