Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11782 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42439 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt Anupma Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Puneet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri Puneet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Sonkar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "A. Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to seeking relief to quash the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by respondent no. 2, in Case No. 12515/2022, Computerized No. T2022202250112515, U/S 24 Act, U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and allow the application dated 23.08.2023. B. Any order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper of circumstances of the case. C. Award cost of the petitioner against the contesting Respondents." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 initiated at the instance of the petitioner has been decided by the Revenue Court vide order dated 13.04.2022. He further submitted that against the order dated 13.04.2022, revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed at the instance of the contesting respondents is pending before respondent no. 8-Commissioner Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj as Computerized Case No. C202302000001162. He next submitted that no interim order is operating in the aforementioned revision filed by the contesting respondents. He submitted that proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 initiated at the instance of the petitioner has been kept in abeyance under the impugned order till the disposal of the proceeding by Commissioner in revision filed against the order dated 13.04.2022. He next submitted that the order impugned passed under Section 24 is illegal as no interim order is operating in revision filed against the order passed under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order as revision filed by contesting respondent against the order passed in the proceeding under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the Commissioner. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the the facts that against the final order passed in the proceeding under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 revision filed by the contesting respondents is pending before the respondent no. 8-Commissioner Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact about the pendency of revision before Commissioner against the order passed in the proceeding under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no. 8-Commissioner Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decide the aforementioned revision bearing Computerized Case No. C202302000001162, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Neetu Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad