Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35445-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5805 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Kala Vati Kori Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Revenue Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahmood Alam,Julfikar Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Julfikar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha- respondent No.4. In view of relief to be granted in the present writ petition, issuance of notice to private respondent Nos.5 to 7 is dispensed with. Present petition has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "(i) Issue of a writ in nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties no 5 to 7 not to create any hindrance in the peaceful possession use and enjoyment of the petitioner in and over the land in question bearing Gata no.296 measuring 18 ares situate at village Mauza Kushmaha Pargana Haveli Awadh Tehsil Sadar Distt Ayodhya during the vacation period. (ii) Issue an order or directions Mandamus commanding the opposite parties no 3 to decide the stay application moved by the petitioner as contained in annexure no. 4 to this writ petition within the time to be fixed by this Hon'ble court." The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that proceedings under Section 66 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are pending before the Chief Revenue Officer, Ayodhya (in short "Revenue Court") bearing Case No. 20230423000378 (Kalawati vs. Kaushaliya and Others). It is also submitted that petitioner has filed an application for interim protection before Revenue Court concerned on 28.05.2025 and the same is pending consideration since then and in absence of interim protection, the petitioner would be dispossessed from the property during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. Clause 489 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, being relevant, is extracted here-in-under:- "489-Ad interim ex parte order-(1) The court may, on the application of any party to a suit, appeal, revision, review or other proceeding and on such terms as it thinks fit, make an order for preservation of any land which is the subject matter of the suit, appeal, revision, review or other proceeding. (2) The court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of making the order for preservation would be defeated by the delay, before making the order, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party: Provided that where it is proposed to make an order without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of making the order would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant- (a) to deliver to the opposite party or to send to him by registered post/speed post immediately after the order has been made, a copy of the application for the order together with- (i) a copy of the affidavit filed In support of the application; (ii) a copy of the plaint, memo of appeal, memo of revision or other application on which the proceeding has been initiated; and (iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies; and (b) to file, on the date on which the order is made or on the working day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent. (3) If the condition mentioned in clause (b) of sub-para (2) of this para is not complied with, the interlocutory order shall be vacated automatically. (4) where an order has been made under this para without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of application within thirty days from the date on which the order was made and where it is unable so to do it shall record its reasons for such inability." Taking into consideration of aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Revenue Officer, Ayodhya to consider and pass an appropriate order on the application for interim relief preferred by the petitioner in Case No. 20230423000378 (Kalawati vs. Kaushaliya and Others) most expeditiously after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting any adjournment to either party, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 13.6.2025 Vinay/- Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench