Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9705 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43154 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kaushlendra Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Khandelwal Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayer:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure No. 1 passed by the respondent no. 2 Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Agra Division, Agra in Revision No. 2718/2024 (Computerized No. C20240100002718) so far as it relates to the rejection of stay application of the petitioner, as well as order dated 28.09.2024 (Annexure No. 7) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhogaon, Mainpur." 2. In the proceedings initiated by the State against the petitioner under section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 a statutory revision was filed by the petitioner as provided under section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Respondent no. 2/The Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, Agra which was numbered as Case No. 2718 of 2024, Computerized Case No. C20240100002718 (Kaushlendra Vs. State of U.P. and others). 3. It is argued that though the aforesaid revision was admitted without assigning any cogent reason whatsoever, the application for interim relief was rejected. It is further argued that the petitioner was granted lease in the year 1965 and the proceedings under section 31/32 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for cancellation of the same was initiated for the first time after more than 55 years which is in complete violation of the statutory provision of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Case of Mool Chand Yadav & Another Vs. Raja Buland Sugar Company Ltd. Rampur & others' (1983 AWC, page 121). 4. On the other hand it is argued by learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents that after going through the records of the case it appears that the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 does not want interference by this Court. 5. When a specific query made by the Court that whether the aforesaid order is speaking and whether the same has been passed in terms of provision as contained under order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. it is admitted that no reasons whatsoever has been assigned by the respondent no. 2 while passing the aforesaid order. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, with the consent of parties the present petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a fresh stay application taking all the grounds as contained in the present petition alongwith certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. In case, the aforesaid stay application is filed within the stipulated period, the respondent No.2 will pass appropriate orders most expeditiously and preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter. 8. Till 15th March, 2025 or till the time a fresh order is passed by the respondent no.2, whichever is earlier, the effect and operation of order dated 28.09.2024 passed by respondent No.2/Sub Divisional Officer, Bhogaon, Mainpur, shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Arti Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad