Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:771 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1023 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rajan Thru. Power Of Attorney Holder Mohd. Tariq And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thou. Prin. Secy. Revenue , Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner assailed the order dated 30.1.2024 and 12.7.2024 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo on 30.1.2024 has been confirmed on 12.7.2024. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were the respondents in the revision pending before respondent no.2. They had appeared on caveat. It is urged that the matter was taken up before the respondent no.2 on 19.4.2023 whereafter the matter was listed on 14.6.2023. The petitioner appeared before respondent no.2 on 14.3.2024 as well wherein the next date fixed was on 15.4.2024. However, it is alleged that on 30.1.2024, the interim order was passed in the absence of the petitioners. The petitioners who had put in appearance on caveat were not heard and whereafter the matter was escalated before the Chairman of the Board of Revenue. Respondent no.1 is said to have confirmed the interim order vide order dated 12.7.2024. It is alleged that the orders are against the principles of natural justice and they have been passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the materials on record, it would indicate that the caveat which is said to have been filed by the petitioner is dated 22.8.2022 which indicate that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and they had been attending the proceedings. It has not been brought on record as to the dates which were fixed prior to 30.1.2024 wherein it could be ascertained that the date next was 30.1.2024. However, from the perusal of the order dated 30.1.2024, the respondent no.2 had directed the respondents to be served and an interim order was granted. On 14.3.2024 which was the next date, the petitioners state that in the order, his presence was marked fixing 15.4.2024. It has not been indicated that in case if the order dated 30.1.2024 was passed, what the petitioner did till 14.3.2024 when his presence was duly recorded in the proceedings. Thereafter on 12.7.2024, the proceedings were taken forward and the interim order was confirmed. In the aforesaid circumstance, where the matter is already pending before respondent no.2 and the record which has been placed before this Court does not clearly indicated as to absence of the petitioner having been explained or demonstrated that the order dated 30.1.2024 and 12.7.2024 have been passed for extraneous consideration. This court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to raise his grievance before respondent no.2 where the matter is said to be pending. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench