Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43554 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 693 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hindustan Stone Cursher, Tahsil Nageena, Birjnor Thru. Proprietor Aftab Alam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saryu Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. (Order on Amendment Application) 1. Heard Sri Saryu Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has filed an application for amendment which is taken on record. 3. In view of the facts stated in the amendment application, the application is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is permitted to make necessary amendment in the memo of writ petition during course of the day. (Order on writ petition) 1. Heard Sri Saryu Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by Board of Revenue thereby dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground of maintainability. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil - Nageena, District Bijnor wherein in relation to various plot number as stated in the order the tenure holders have been restrained from alienating the said land and also any other land which has been recorded in 1359 fasli for public utility. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the dispute raised by him only pertains to gata No. 190/11 and 190/12 situated at Village - Sundervali, Tehsil - Nageena, District - Bijnor which was recorded in the name of Lakhbir Singh S/o Indar Singh which was purchased by one Bhagwan Singh Negi on 27.01.2008 in an auction on which petitioner was conducting mining/stone crushing operations. 4. The said proceedings were initiated by the gram panchayat U/S 145 of the U.P. Revenue Code in which the interim injunction was granted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner claims that he is also adversely affected by the order of the SDM dated 22.07.2024 and accordingly he had filed a revision U/S 210 of U.P. Revenue Code. It has been submitted that to maintain a revision U/S 210 of U.P. revenue Code, twin conditions are required to be fulfilled. The first being that against the order which the revision has been filed no appeal lies and secondly the said order pertains to suit or "proceedings decided". If the said conditions are fulfilled, a revision would be maintainable. It has been submitted that the Board of Revenue has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner only on the ground of maintainability holding that the order which is sought to be revised is an interlocutory order against which no revision would be maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the order dated 22.07.2024 is arbitrary and illegal and has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore the revisional authority ought to have decided the case on merits and has committed manifest error by rejecting the same on the ground of maintainability. 6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the provision of Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code are very specific in terms of conferring jurisdiction to the Board of Revenue or the Commissioner who may call for the record of any suit or proceedings decided by sub-ordinate court in which no appeal lies. He further submits that a perusal of the order dated 22.07.2024 would indicate that in exercise of powers U/S 145 of U.P. Revenue Code or the suit proceedings initiated by the gaon sabha, he has restrained the alienation of all lands which have been recorded as public way, drain, forest, river and land which falls for public utility. It is further noticed that the land of the petitioner is also included and he has also been restrained from alienating the said land. 7. Having heard rival contention of the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the order dated 22.07.2024 by which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the suit proceedings had issued notice to all the respondents therein. It has been stated that petitioner was not made respondent in the aforesaid proceedings and being aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2024 he has preferred a revision U/S 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which has been rejected on the ground of maintainability holding that the order revised against is merely an interlocutory order and does not decide the rights of the parties. Accordingly the only question falls in the present writ petition is with regard to determination of the nature of the interim order dated 22.07.2024 as to whether a revision against such an order would be maintainable or not. 8. It seems that on the suit proceeding initiated by the gaon sabha the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has considered the application for interim relief and restrained all the persons who according to revenue records pertaining to 1359 fasli, their land is recorded as public way, drain, forest, river or is included in any public utility land. The gata number of the petitioner is also included in the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 and accordingly he also stands restrained from alienation and changing of nature of the said land. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for impleadment and seek vacation / modification of the order dated 22.07.2024. 9. A perusal of the order dated 22.07.2024 does not decide the rights of either of the parties inasmuch as only notices have been issued and it is only after appearance of the respondents therein and after giving them opportunity to file the written objections and evidence the suit would be finally decided. At the appellate stage only to protect the lands, a restraining order has been passed without deciding the rights of any of the parties and accordingly, the impugned order does not fall into category of "proceeding decided" and therefore a revision against the said order U/S 210 of U.P. Revenue code, 2006 would not be maintainable. 10. In light of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 02.07.2024 and 02.07.2025, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to join the proceedings and move an appropriate application for redressal of his grievances. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench