Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34841 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5798 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakshit Raj Singh,Ayush Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.9. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that at the behest of the private respondent nos.6 to 8 proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 was initiated and the petitioner who were materially affected was not impleaded as a party, however, being aggrieved against the order dated 27.02.2019 the father of the petitioner had initiated an appeal under Section 24(4) of the Code 2006 before the Additional Commissioner. In the said appeal, the father of the petitioner was enjoying an interim order. It has further been pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal the father of the petitioner namely Sri Ram had died on 08th January, 2025 and application for substitution was moved. In the interim period the petitioner [who is the son along with respondent nos.10 to 12 who are the siblings of the petitioner, who are impleaded as proforma party as they are available hence for their benefit] a petition was filed before a Division Bench of this Court bearing no.Writ C No.3786 of 2025 (Sushil Kumar vs State of U.P) wherein petition was disposed of by means of order dated 22.04.2025 with a direction to Additional Commissioner (Administration) to decide the appeal preferably within a period of two months leaving it open for the petitioner to raise all objections before the said Court. It is urged that the Additional Commissioner being over enthusiastic though had fixed the matter for hearing on 30.05.2025 but it vacated the interim order which was already in his favour without considering the appeal on its merit. It is urged that there was no occasion for the Additional Commissioner to have vacated the interim order and then fixed the appeal for hearing rather the appeal should either have been heard on its own merits and finally decided but that has not been done and now the next date fixed in the appeal is 15.06.2025. Noticing the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that in light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure no.12, the course open for the appellate authority was to either decide the appeal since the said order passed by the High Court is dated 22.04.2025 and the period of two months within which it is to be decided would expire on 22.06.2025 and the appeal is listed on 15.06.2025, hence, considering the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to issue notice to the private respondent nos.6 to 8 as no gainful purpose would be served and moreover, they have ample opportunity to raise their submissions before the appellate Court. Hence, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself directing the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the appeal either on the next date or within a week thereafter so that the time line fixed by the Division Bench of this Court is duly adhered and till the decision on the appeal, the operation of the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 shall remain stayed. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the plea of the petitioner on merits and the appellate authority shall decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Order Date :- 6.6.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench