Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82305 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41443 of 2024 Petitioner :- Gurmeet Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Chaubey,Pramod K. Gupta,Shailendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Pandey,C.S.C.,Ramesh Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit dated 20.03.2025 filed by the petitioner in the Court today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dhananjay Singh, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondent no.1, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Gram Sabha / respondent no. 2 and Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5. 3. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Dhampur, Bijnor in Case No. 10766 of 2022 (Gurmeet Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh & 2 others) in proceeding under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad in Revision No. 644 of 2023, Computerized Case No. C202313000000744 (Gurmeet Singh Vs. Sukhvinder Kaur & 3 others) in proceeding under Section 210 of the Revenue Code, 2006. 4. Precisely, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the proceeding initiated at the instance of the petitioner under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the court of learned Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Dhampur, District Bijnor, the said court passed an interim order dated 09.12.2022 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the said interim order dated 09.12.2022 was vacated by the leaned court of Sub Divisional Officer vide the impugned order dated 06.04.2023. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the order of the vacation of the interim order dated 09.12.2022 has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 06.04.2023 is a cryptic order as no reasons have been recorded by the learned court for vacating the interim order dated 09.12.2022. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner preferred a revision against the aforesaid order dated 06.04.2023 before the Court of learned Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the same was registered as Revision No. 644 of 2023 (Gurmeet Singh Vs. Sukhvinder Kaur and 3 others). However, the same was dismissed as not maintainable at the admission stage itself being against an interlocutory order. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in actual physical possession of the property in question since the year 1994. He is cultivating the same and paying Lagan. He further submits that the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 has caused irreparable loss to the petitioner as the authorities after the vacation of the said interim order dated 09.12.2022, are creating hindrance in the peaceful physical possession of the petitioner. 8. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent nos. 3 to 5 has vehemently opposed the writ petition. 9. Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent nos. 3 to 5 submits that now once the revision against the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 has already been dismissed vide order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad against which the petitioner approached the learned Board of Revenue by preferring second revision which was also dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2024 being the second revision, the said order dated 06.04.2023 has attained finality. 10. Confronted with the aforesaid objections raised by the learned counsel for the private respondents; the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner after arguing the matter at some length, made an statement that he would prefer to withdraw the present writ petition at this stage, subject to grant of liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application afresh seeking interim protection before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Dhampur, Bijnor in Case No. T202213160310766 of 2022 (Gurmeet Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh & 2 others). 11. In view of the fact that both the courts below dismissed the revisions vide orders dated 24.12.2023 and 01.04.2024, against the impugned order dated 06.04.2023, whereby the interim order of status-quo passed on 09.12.2022 was vacated vide impugned order dated 06.04.2023 without recording any reason are merely on the ground of maintainability and not on the merits. This Court in the interest of justice finds it proper to accept the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding withdrawal of the instant writ petition at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Court concerned seized with the proceedings under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is consigned to records at this stage with a liberty granted to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the Court concerned where the proceeding under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending consideration; interalia, seeking interim protection by raising all the pleas to establish his case for grant of interim protection. 13. It is hereby provided that in case, if the petitioner moves such a detailed application duly supported by an affidavit, before the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Dhampur, Bijnor in Case No. T202213160310766 of 2022 (Gurmeet Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh & 2 others) pending under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, within a period of ten days from today, the same shall be thoroughly considered and appropriate orders in details shall be passed on the same by the Court concerned, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned; on the next date fixed in the case or within a maximum period of one month from the date of filing of the said application, whichever is earlier. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not entered in the merits of the case. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Arif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad