HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5488 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Uma Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. 2. In view of the proposed order, notice to Respondents No. 2 and 3 is hereby dispensed with. 3. The captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia praying therein for the following relief:- "to issue an order or direction to the opposite party no.1 i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation, District Ayodhya to consider and decide the 'Application for stay/interim injunction' pending in Appeal No.0400/2025 (Rajendra Prasad & another vs. Ram Kishor & another) contained as Annexure No.3 to this petition, expeditiously, within stipulated period; in the ends of justice. ii) to issue any other or directions directing to opposite party no.2 & 3 to maintain stauts quo over suit property during pendency of Appeal No.0400/2025 (Rajendra Prasad & another vs. Ram Kishor & another), in the ends of justice." 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed Appeal No.836 of 2025; Computerized No.202554042300000400, (Rajendra Prasad and another vs. Ram Kishor Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Uma Kant Mishra, Ashish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rajendra Prasad .....Petitioner(s) Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s) and another) before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, District Ayodhya and along with the said appeal has also preferred an application for stay of order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, District Ayodhya. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that inspite of best efforts of the petitioner, till date the appellate authority has not considered and decided the application for stay filed by the petitioner in the appeal. It has further been argued that there is every likelihood that due to non consideration and decision on the application for stay, the petitioner may suffer irreparable loss and damage. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued by this Court thereby commanding the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ayodhya, to consider and decide the petitioner's application for stay filed in Appeal No. 836 of 2025, expeditiously. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the application for stay filed by the petitioner in appeal is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ayodhya since last two months. 8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to Respondent No.1-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ayodhya to consider and decided the petitioner's application for stay filed in the aforesaid appeal, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order provided there is no legal impediment. September 15, 2025 Renu/- A227 No. 5488 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench