Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47524 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7682 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Sultanpur And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Singh Chauhan,Hanumant Lal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had moved an application U/S 30(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 with regard to partition of Gata No. 441, 442 & 428 situated at Village Bharosa, Tehsil - Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur. He further submits that petitioner is a co- tenure holder in the said gatas and had moved an application for interim relief to restrain the other co-tenure holders from raising constructions. 4. It is on the application of the petitioner that the interim order in favour of the petitioner was passed on 30.06.2025 and notices were issued to other parties. The private respondents have put in appearance and have moved an application for vacation of the interim order. In their application for vacation it was stated that all the joint co-tenure holders are in possession of the respective plots as per the family settlement and they have raised their construction on the said property on which they are in possession but when the private respondents started construction, objection has been raised by the petitioner. It was further taken into account of the fact that the entire construction is complete except the roof has to be constructed. 5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that by means of impugned order dated 01.08.2025 the interim order granted to the petitioner on 30.06.2025 has been vacated against which present writ petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have put in appearance and the proceedings are in the final stages and can be concluded expeditiously but submits that till the final orders are passed, respondents be stopped from raising any further construction as it will materially affect the rights of the parties inasmuch the application for partition U/S 30(2)) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is still pending consideration. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 8. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that proceedings for partition which are pending before the Chief Revenue officer deserves to be expedited. It is further noticed that private respondents have already put their appearance and have also filed objections which is evident from the detailed order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with following directions:- a. The respondent No. 2 shall decide the application of the petitioner with expedition, say, within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. b. The parties shall be at liberty to file all the pleadings in case they have not already filed within next two weeks. c. Till final orders are passed, status quo as exists today shall be maintained by the parties. 9. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the chief Revenue Officer. 10. With the aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench