Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5186 Court No. - 8 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 382 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ehtesham Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 has been accepted by the ofÏce of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. 3. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.6 and 7. 4. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent Nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with. 5. At the outset, it may be noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a mention before the court on 24.1.2025 that the petitioner had filed a revision which is engaging attention of respondent no.1 and with the revision, he has also moved an application for interim relief, upon which the notices have been issued fixing 11.2.2025. It is urged that since the patta of the petitioner has been called in question and the preliminary objections of the petitioner were rejected by the order impugned in the appeal, hence, he has apprehension that the State authorities may cancel the patta and since his application alongwith revision was pending, as such it was requested that the matter may be taken up. The court had permitted the matter to be taken up on 27.1.2025 and it is in this way that the petition has been listed before this Court. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated at the behest of private respondent nos.4 and 5 for cancellation of patta against which the petitioner has filed his detailed objections dated 24.10.2024. However, without adverting to the same including the issue of limitation, respondent no.2 passed the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 against which the petitioner filed a revision before respondent no.1 and as noticed above, the revisional court merely issued notices and there has been no consideration on the application for interim relief which is seized by respondent no.1. 7. Accordingly, at this stage, this court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending rather the ends of justice can be met by relegating the petitioner to move an application for early hearing before the respondent no.1 where the revision is pending and in case if such an application is moved by the petitioner, respondent no.1 shall consider and pass order thereon including hearing on revision as well as interim relief application, which can be decided on its own merits, preferably within four weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the respondent no.1. 8. It is made clear that this court has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits and the revisional court shall decide the application for interim relief, peremptorily in accordance with law. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall move an appropriate application before the respondent no.1, within three days from today. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner tries to misuse the liberty, it would be open for the respondent no.1 to proceed in accordance with law. 10. Till the decision of the revisional court on the application for interim relief pending before the revisional court or till a period of four weeks whichever is earlier, the possession of the petitioner may not be disturbed. 11. The petition is disposed of in terms of above. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench