Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19046 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 482 of 2025 Petitioner :- Avinash Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Kesharwani,Rajesh Kesharwani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the array of the parties during course of the day. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 3. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 2.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 in revision No. 3947 of 2024 (Computerized case No. R20241436003947 (Rakesh Mishra Vs. Hriday Narain)." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 initiated at the instance of the petitioner's grandfather was decided in proper manner vide order dated 20.8.2024. He submitted that revision filed by private respondent no.4 against the order dated 20.8.2024 has been entertained and interim order has been granted staying the operation of the order dated 20.8.2024. He submitted that petitioner is not entitled for any interim protection during pendency of revision as the plot regarding which the order under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was passed has not been challenged in revision. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that no interference is required in the matter as under the impugned order, the revision has been entertained and interim order has been granted, as such, petitioner should contest the proceeding of revision in proper manner. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, final order has been passed on 20.8.2024. There is also no dispute about the fact that in revision filed by respondent no.4, the operation of the impugned order dated 20.8.2024 has been stayed under the impugned order dated 2.12.2024. 8. Since the revision filed by respondent no.4 is pending before respondent no.2, Board of Revenue and an interim protection has been granted, as such, petitioner should file an application for vacation of interim order rather writ petition before this Court. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of with observation that petitioner should file proper application for vacation of interim order before Board of Revenue which will be considered and disposed of by Board of Revenue in proper manner expeditiously preferably within period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Board of Revenue is further directed that after deciding the application for vacation of interim order, the entire revision shall be decided expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the date of disposal of the application for vacation of interim order. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad