Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3501 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1071 of 2024 Petitioner :- Saddam Hussain Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Shukla,Brijendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Shyam Pratap Singh,Virendra Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent. Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 31.03.2023 passed in proceedings under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was further escalated by the petitioner by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue which also came to be dismissed on 05.03.2024 and in the aforesaid backdrop, two orders are under challenge before this Court. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the private respondents are co-tenure holders of plot no.185 while plot no.184 is exclusively of private respondent no.4. It is further submitted that without disclosing the true and correct facts, the private respondents got the nature of plots changed from agricultural to non agricultural in terms of Section 143 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act and the said order came to be passed behind the back of the petitioner on 29.08.2008. It is further urged that the petitioner had moved an application for recall which did not find favour and, consequently, the matter came up before the revisional court who by means of the order dated 04.11.2016 set aside the earlier order dated 29.08.2008 and remanded the matter for decision afresh. Subsequently, after hearing the parties, the respondent no.3 once again maintained the order dated 29.08.2008, against which the petitioner preferred the revision which did not find favour and is now before the Court. It is also urged that the allegations that the parties had entered into an oral settlement is not correct and unless and until there was partition by metes and bounds, it was not open for the authorities to have converted the land use from agricultural to non agricultural land merely at the behest of private respondents without impleading the petitioners and in this way ,the petitioners have not been granted any opportunity of hearing, consequently, the orders passed are bad in the eyes of law. Sri Shukla, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners have already filed a civil suit seeking protection of their possession by filing a suit for injunction wherein an interim order is subsisting in favour of the petitioner. It is urged that once there was an oral family settlement in pursuance whereof the party are in respective possession. Accordingly, the contention to state that the property has not been partitioned is not quite correct and in the aforesaid circumstances all the issues which are sought to be raised by the petitioner have to be considered by the respondent no.3 and it has been upheld by the respondent no.2 in revision, consequently, the writ does not deserve consideration. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, whether there is a family settlement or not which had resulted in partition of the property subject matter of these proceedings is to be decided in appropriate proceedings. From a perusal of Annexure-14 which is a copy of an interim order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the civil court in Regular Suit no.61/2023 which was initiated by the petitioner himself, it categorically indicates that the issue of family settlement will be considered after the parties lead their evidence. In view of the aforesaid facts, that the dispute is already engaging the attention of the Court and merely by passing an order under Section 80 of the U.P.Revenue Code, 2006, no substantive rights of the parties are affected coupled with the fact that in view of the subsisting injunction order in favour of the petitioner their rights stand protected. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition leaving it open for the petitioner to get its right adjudicated in accordance with law where the proceedings are already pending. No observation made herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case of either parties. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench