Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47324 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 766 of 2025 Petitioner :- Indrajeet And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Tripathi,Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avanish Kumar Yadav,Sooraj Lal Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Sooraj Lal on caveat on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 and filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.3 along with short counter affidavit. The same is taken on record. 2. The order impugned in the present case is dated 26.6.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision preferred by the petitioner in which he also moved application for interim relief. In the said revision private respondents had appeared and opposed the application for interim relief. The revisional authority while rejecting the application for interim relief by means of the impugned order has recorded the fact that there is serious contest with regard to title and possession by both the parties. 3. In the present case it has been submitted that while the petitioners are claiming their possession and title on the basis of joint purchase of the disputed property while on the other hand the respondents are denying the claim made by the petitioners stating that the disputed property is a self acquired property. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the application for interim relief. 4. This Court after examining the impugned order as well as after hearing both the parties is of the considered opinion that in cases where serious dispute goes to the root of the matter and even possession and title are seriously disputed then interim protection deserves to be granted by the revisional court. While rejecting the application for interim relief no reason has been indicated while, on the other hand, the ingredients for grant of interim injunction are apparent from the reading of the impugned order pertaining to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. 5. Both the parties have agreed that direction may be issued to the revisional court to decide the revision with expedition and further undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the revisional court and they have further submitted that all the pleadings are complete and the matter is fixed for hearing. 6. In light of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties directing opposite party No.1 i.e. Deputy Director of Director, District Gonda to decide revision No.0497 of 2024, computerized No.202454083000000497 under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (Indrajeet and others Vs. Jhinnkaan and others) with expedition, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him, in accordance with law after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The petitioners undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the revisional court and also undertake not to seek any unnecessary adjournment. 7. It is provided that till orders are passed finally by the revisional court, as directed by this Court, the parties shall maintain status quo over the property in dispute as existing today. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 13.8.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench