HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2762 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ripu Daman Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Arun Kumar Saxena for respondent No.4. 2. The dispute raised by the petitioner in the present case pertains to the interim order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow in proceedings under Section 35 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code which appeal has been filed by opposite party No.4. 3. The petitioner has assailed the said order stating that without giving any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing the impugned orders have been passed which should be quashed. 4. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the proceedings under Section 35 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code itself are without jurisdiction in as much as the village in question has come under consolidation operation and all the matters pending before any court would stand abated and only the consolidation authorities would have right to decide any dispute pertaining to the land under consolidation. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has already been noticed by the appellate authority who has stated that the matter is already under consideration before Consolidation Officer, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anupam Dwivedi, Ripu Daman Shahi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law, Arun Kumar Saxena, Dilip Kumar Pandey, Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi Vinay Kumar Agarwal Thru. Attorney Holder Pragti Agarwal .....Petitioner(s) District Magistrate, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Considering the fact the said aspect has already been taken cognizance by Sub Divisional Magistrate in appeal, the petitioner is further directed to file any objection within next ten days and the learned counsel for the respondents shall file his response before one week thereafter. 6. Accordingly, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow is directed to hear both the parties on any date fixed within two weeks thereafter and decide the question of maintainability of the appeal as well as application for vacation of the interim order which is to be preferred by the petitioner in the said proceedings, expeditiously, in accordance with law. 7. The parties undertake to cooperate in the proceeding. 8. In case, for any reason the application is not decided within two weeks from the date the pleadings are complete as directed here-in-above, he shall conclude the proceedings within a maximum period of two weeks thereafter in accordance with law. 9. With aforesaid direction the petition stands disposed of. September 12, 2025 RKM. A227 No. 2762 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench