Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30802 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5338 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd Mobin Respondent :- Upper Ayukat (Nyayika) Prayagraj Mundal Prayagraj And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Azad Rai,C.S.C. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondent no.1 as well as Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Gaon Sabha - respondent no.2 and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter-alia, for the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.1 - Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decide Revision No.01866 of 2018 (Computerized Case No. C201802000001866 (Riyaz Ahmad Vs. Hasan Ali and others), under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within stipulated period." 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present petitioner is the respondent in the aforesaid pending revision. He submits that the matter is fixed for hearing and for one reason or the other the hearing of the case could not take place. He further submits that the said revision is pending since 2018 and because of the pendency of the said case the petitioner is facing undue hardship. 4. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 183 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under: "The appellate or the revisional Court shall, endeavour to finally decide the appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded." 5. There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within stipulated period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the case within stipulated period as to be fixed by this Court. 7. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon the respondent nos.3 to 8 is dispensed with. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending. 9. Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with direction to respondent no.1 - Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide Revision No.01866 of 2018 (Computerized Case No. C201802000001866 (Riyaz Ahmad Vs. Hasan Ali and others), under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned order on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to either of the parties and the adjournment, if prayed for, may be granted only in exceptional circumstances. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Atul Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad