Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7959 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 109 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shyam Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Of Revenue Deptt., Lko And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar,Shailesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Under challenge is the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the revision preferred by the private respondents have been allowed, as a consequence the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Tehsildar has been set aside and the matter has been remanded for decision before the Court of Tehsildar. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the respondent no.2 is wholly without jurisdiction, in as much as, against an interlocutory order whereby the Tehsildar had only protected the property in question by means of the order dated 14.10.2024 which has been interfered with and without even issuing notice to the petitioner the order impugned dated 16.12.2024 has been passed. It is further urged that the order is wholly without jurisdiction and also against the principles of natural justice and for the said reason, the order cannot be sustained. Having considered the aforesaid submission and from a perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the Tehsildar by means of the order dated 14.10.2024 had directed the operation of the exparte order dated 31.10.2023 to be stayed. However, from a perusal of the said order it appears that the application for recall which was moved by the present petitioner, upon which the order dated 14.10.2024 was passed was also accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the order dated 14.10.2024 staying the operation of the order dated 31.10.2023 was passed even without condoning the delay. It is against this order that the private respondents have preferred a revision. As far as the maintainability of revision is concerned it cannot be said that the revision was not maintainable for the powers conferred in terms of Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are quite wide and it encompasses within its fold not only any order but even the proceedings arising from any Court subordinate to the Board of Revenue. Be that as it may, the fact still remains that the order dated 14.10.2024 itself, whether could have been passed without condoning the delay is doubtful as it is now well settled to be disputed that if there is a disability in the proceedings such as a petition being barred by limitation then the authority concerned does not get jurisdiction to pass an interim order without condoning the delay. In the aforesaid circumstances, if this Court interferes with the order passed by the Board of Revenue that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing then the effect would be that the order dated 14.10.2024 shall stand revived which for the reason noticed on the preceding paragraph is patently incorrect. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction will be loath to interfere in the matter and grant any order which in fact will impact of reviving another illegal order. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition leaving it open for the petitioners to urge and contest the matter before the court concerned wherein next date fixed is 17.02.2025. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court may not be treated as on expression of opinion on merits of the case of either parties and the Court concerned shall decide the matter as per law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench