Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3443 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4841 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Singh Rathor And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amish Kumar Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Narayan Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1.Heard Mr. Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee. 2.The instant writ petition has been filed for the following prayer:- "(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow in Case No.REV/2866 of 2024, computerized Case No.R20240322002866 in between Smt. Indra Singh Vs. Arjun Singh Sengar (Annxed as Annexure No.6 to this Writ Petition). (b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 27.11.2024 passed Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow in Case No.REV/2866 of 2024, computerized Case No.R20240322002866 in between Smt. Indra Singh Vs. Arjun Singh Sengar (Annexed as Annexure No.6 to this writ petition)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that proceeding under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been decided in arbitrary manner by the Sub Divisional Officer. He submitted that appeal filed by petitioners was allowed and matter was remitted back before the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 afresh. He submitted that against the remand order passed in appeal contesting respondent No.5 has filed revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which has been entertained and ex-prate interim order has been passed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that order granting interim protection on the very first day by the Board of Revenue is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that interim protection granted by Board of Revenue in revison be set aside and revision be decided in accordance with law. 4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee submitted that writ petition against the interim order passed passed in the pending revision is not maintainable, as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 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 fact that revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by respondent no.5 is pending before respondent No.2-Board of Revenue in which interim order has been granted which is impugned in this petition. 7.Since revision filed by respondent No.5 is pending before Board of Revenue as such petitioners have full opportunity to appear before Board of Revenue and apply for vacation of interim order in accordance with law rather writ petition before ;this Court for quashing the interim order passed in pending revision. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition stands disposed of finally directing the petitioners to appear in the pending proceeding before Board of Revenue and file application for vacation of the interim order granted in the revision. Respondent No.2/Board of Revenue is directed to consider the petitioners' application for vacation of interim order after affording proper opportunity to the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the stay vacation application. After disposal of the stay vacation application entire proceeding of revision shall be concluded within further period of two months from the date of passing of order on stay vacation application. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad