HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 920 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Mahendra Kumar Sharma for respondent No.3. 1. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the dispute in the present case pertains to the property of Rangi Lal son of Rameshwar, who was the tenure holder of gata No.337 situated at Village Gilauli, Pargana Bahraich, Tehsil Ikauna, District Shravasti and died issue-less. The petitioner claims that he is the legal heir of Rangi Lal while opposite party No.3 is also claiming himself to be the legal heir as per the adoption deed dated 5.9.1991. It is in aforesaid circumstances that application for mutation preferred by opposite party No.3 under Section 12 of U. P. C. H. Act, 1953 was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 23.6.2025 against which opposite party No.3 had preferred an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation and by means of order dated 26.6.2025 he has granted interim protection in favour of the respondents. 2. It is against the order dated dated 26.6.2025 that the petitioner had preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated dated 12.8.2025. Accordingly, order dated 26.6.2025 as well as order dated 12.8.2025 have been assailed in the present writ petition. 3. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Pandey, Saumya Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mahendra Kumar Sharma Triveni Prasad And Another .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Shrawasti And Others .....Respondent(s) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had lodged his caveat in the appellate proceedings before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and initially orders were passed without giving opportunity of hearing but subsequently on noticing that caveat has been lodged he was given opportunity of hearing and thereafter order has been passed. He has further address this Court on the merits of the case also stating that in the facts and circumstances of the case no interim protection could have been granted in favour of the respondents. 4. Same issue was placed before the revisional court who had considered all the arguments raised by the petitioner considering the fact that against an interlocutory order no revision is maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said orders could not satisfy this Court also with regard to maintainability of the revisional proceedings which was preferred against an interlocutory order passed by the appellate authority. He has also considered all the material and found that while passing the order dated 26.6.2025 opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and also due reasons have been recorded with regard to the fact that before the Consolidation Officer the original copy of the adoption deed was not produced and accordingly he found it a fit case for passing an interim order. 6. This Court has duly considered the submissions of the petitioner and also perused the record. 7. It is noticed that against the interim order dated 26.6.2025 a revision was preferred before Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was not maintainable. Apart from the above, it is found that the petitioner was duly heard before the appellate authority when the order dated 26.6.2025 was passed and, hence, it cannot be said that the order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing. It is further noticed that reasons have been spelt out for passing the 8. WRIB No. 920 of 2025 2 interim order as the original adoption deed was not filed before the trial court. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the said order. It is, however, provided that the appellate proceedings are pending where the petitioner will have full opportunity to raise all the objections on maintainability as well as merits. In light of the above, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 9. September 23, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 920 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench