HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3555 of 2025 Court No. - 49 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Mool Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "I. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to decide the Second Appeal No. 870 of 2020, Computerized Case No. AL2020024200870, under section 208 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by respondent no.3 expeditiously within an stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that applicant is defendant in Second Appeal No. 870 of 2020 under Section 208 U.P. Revenue Code which was pending before respondent No.2. Though the petitioner has filed an objection, the appeal has not been decided till date which is causing irreparable loss to the petitioner. This Court in the case of Daya Shankar vs. State of U.P. and 4 others; 2023 (6) ADJ 181, has already directed in paragraph No. 13 and 14 that where no time has been fixed for deciding the appeal, revision or second appeal, then the authorities upto the level of Commissioner shall decide the same within six months and by the Board of Revenue within one year, failing which the authorities will be liable to be proceeded for the contempt of court. Paragraphs No. 13, 14 and 17 of Daya Shankar (supra) is quoted as under: “13. Apart from the above proceeding for which specific time frame was fixed by the legislature in the Code, 2006 or in the Rules, 2016 there are other proceedings for which no time frame has been fixed either in Code, 2006 or in Rules, 2016 therefore, the concerned presiding officer or the revenue officer should make endeavour to decide these proceedings in following manner :- (i) Application for right of way and other easement u/s 25 should be Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mool Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C. Mohammad Yaseen Khan .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) decided within a period of one month and if the same could not be concluded then reason for the same should be recorded. (ii) Application for removal of obstacle from public road, path or common land of village u/s 26 should endeavour to be decided within a period of one month and if the same could not be concluded then reason for the same should be recorded; (iii) Application u/s 58 to decide the dispute regarding property mentioned in Sections 54, 56 and 57 should be decided preferably within a period of three months from the date of application and if the same could not be decided then reason for the same should be recorded; (iv) Application u/s 65 for delivery of possession of allotted land from unauthorized person should be decided preferably within a period of three months and if the same could not be concluded then reason for the same should be recorded; (v) Application for the execution of the final decree passed u/s 116 of Code, 2006 by demarcation of Kurra on site should be decided within a period of one month and if the same could not be concluded then reason for the same should be recorded; (vi) A suit for declaration as bhumidhar/asami under Section-144 of the Code, 2006 should be decided within a period of the six months and if the same could not be concluded then the reason for the same should be recorded; (vii) Any other application referable to any provision of Code, 2006 should also be decided within the period prescribed by Code, 2006 or Rules, 2016, if no time is prescribed by Code, 2006 or by Rules, 2016 then same should be decided within a period of one month and if same is not decided within aforesaid period then reason should be recorded. 14. If the proceedings mentioned above are appealable or revisable or subject to second appeal as per the provision of Code, 2006 and if no time is prescribed by the Code, 2006 then these proceedings should also be decided within a period of six months up to the level of Commissioner and within a period of one year by the Board of Revenue, and if not decided within the said period then the reason for the same should be recorded. 17. For the violation of direction mentioned above by any revenue officer including the Collector and Commissioner and as well as Board of Revenue, they would be liable for contempt of this Court for not following the direction in deciding the proceedings as mentioned above (including pending proceeding in corresponding provision of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act, 1950 and as Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901).” WRIB No. 3555 of 2025 2 4. However, before initiating the contempt proceeding, this Court is giving one more opportunity to respondent No. 2 to decide the Second Appeal No. 870 of 2020 as per the direction of this Court in the case of Daya Shankar (supra). 5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.2 to decide the Second Appeal No. 870 of 2020 expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of receiving a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to initiate contempt proceeding in the light of paragraph No. 17 of the judgement passed in Daya Shankar (supra). September 4, 2025 Vandana WRIB No. 3555 of 2025 3 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad