HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 910 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Chandra Bhanu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Umesh Singh on behalf of respondent no.9. 3. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with. 4. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue in exercise of power under section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and on a revision preferred by the private respondents, have entertained the said revision and summoned the record of the Appellate Authority. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute in the present case pertains to Gata No. 288/759 area 1-5-0 and Gata No. 288/26 area 0.071 hectares situated at Village Malik Mau Ayma, Pargana, Tehsil and District Raebareli, which is recorded in the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. 6. It has been submitted that the said lands were purchased by the father of petitioners, namely, Bindeshwari Patel and Chandra Pal and the land was also mutated in their names that the dispute was initiated that once Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Bhanu Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Umesh Singh Chandramani @ Chandra Mani Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Member And 15 Others .....Respondent(s) Chandra Pal came in the possession of the said land but he could not prove his possession during the consolidation proceedings and an order was passed in favour of predecessor in interest of the petitioners on 14.11.1972. It is stated that it is only after elapsed of 23 years that an application under Section 229 B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed filed before the Sub Divisional Officer and the said matter was allowed by means of of the order dated 29.10.2024. 7. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2024, passed by the Additional Magistrate-II, Raebareli, had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow on 4.11.2024 and ad interim order was also passed in favour of the petitioners, by means of order dated 3.12.2024. 8. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2024 the private respondents have preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, whereby the impugned order dated 22.8.2025 has been passed. According to the petitioners no revision would be maintainable and without considering the said aspect, the file of the Appellate Court has been summoned. He further submits that by means of the order dated 4.9.2025 when the order of the Board of Revenue was placed before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), where the appeal of the petitioners was pending, has passed the order where the record has been directed to be transmitted to the Board of Revenue and the proceeding stands abated. 9. It has been submitted that merely because the revision against the interim order passed by the Appellate Court has been entertained, would not render the appeal to be abated under any provision of law and accordingly has also challenge the order dated 4.9.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial). 10. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the petition but has fairly submitted that even though the revisional court has summoned the records but merely by summoning the record of the lower court the pending appeal would not stand abated. 11. Considering the rival contentions it is noticed that it is the case of the petitioners that in the peculiar circumstances where an interim order has WRIB No. 910 of 2025 2 been passed in favour of the petitioners on 4.11.2024 an appeal would not be maintainable before the Board of Revenue and further submits that when the record has been summoned by the Revisional Authority from the appellate authority and in such circumstances the appeal cannot stand abated. This Court noticing that the arguments raised before this Court is of the considered view that as the revision is pending before the Board of Revenue, all such grounds can be raised there and duly considered, on the next date fixed on 3.11.2025 or within two weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. I find it proper to dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the objections pertaining to maintainability of the revision before the revisional authority and file his affidavit within next three weeks. On the next date fixed i.e. 3.11.2025, the revisional authority shall consider the objections of the petitioners after giving full opportunity of hearing tot he private respondents and dispose of his objections and in case the revisional court is of the opinion that the revision is not maintainable then the file of the appellate court shall be remitted directing them to proceed and decide the appeal, preferred by the petitioners, in accordance with law. 15. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. September 22, 2025 Muk WRIB No. 910 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench