Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23707 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4922 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kaleem Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Kamla Kant Mishra,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.4 & 5 is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kamla Kant Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.4, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha. 3. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.8.2024 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, U.P., Prayagraj in Revision No.290 of 2021 (Kalim Ahmad vs. S.D.M. and Others), (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition). ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 14.8.2024 passed by Member Board of Revenue, U.P. Prayagraj in Revision No.290 of 2021 (Kalim Ahmad vs. S.D.M. and Others)." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed on behalf of the petitioner arising out of proceeding under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the Board of Revenue. He further submitted that initially interim order was granted on 17.7.2023 in the revision by the Board of Revenue but subsequently under the impugned order dated 14.8.2024, interim order granted on 17.7.2023 has been vacated in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that appropriate direction be issued for deciding the pending revision within stipulated period and till the disposal of the revision, the parties be directed to maintain status quo with respect to plot in question. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Kamla Kant Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that no interference is required against the interim order passed in the pending revision in the proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further submitted that revision is pending before the Board of Revenue which shall be decided in accordance with law. 6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed in the proceeding under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before the Board of Revenue, U.P., Prayagraj. 8. Since Board of Revenue has vacated the interim order in the pending revision as such, there is no scope of interference against the impugned order dated 14.8.2024. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the Board of Revenue, U.P., Prayagraj to decide the Revision No.290 of 2021 (Kalim Ahmad vs. S.D.M. and Others) on merit in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the Board of Revenue, U.P., Prayagraj. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad