HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5907 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard Sri Apoorva Tewari along with Sri Tushar Mittal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra who has filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record along with Sri Abhineet Jaiswal learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Sri Arun Singh learned Standing counsel appears for respondent no.1. An application for amendment has been moved by counsel for the petitioner indicating a typographical error in the plot in question which is subject matter of the dispute. The application is formal in nature and there is no legal impediment in allowing the same. Consequently, the application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall carry out the necessary amendment during course of the day. By means of the instant petition the petitioner prays for following reliefs: "(a) Issue an order or direction commanding the respondent no.1 to consider and decide the Revision No.07R/2025/77-3099/313/2025 pending before it expeditiously in a time bound manner as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Apoorva Tewari, Tushar Mittal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manoj Sahu M/S Ashiyana Promoters And Developers Pvt.Ltd.Thru. Authorised Signatory,Mr.Ram Vinay Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Infr. And Ind. Deve. Lko And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) (b) Issue an order or direction commanding the respondent no.2 and 3 to not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner in respect of Plot No.[HRA-11] Industrial Area Surajpur Site-C, Extension Phase-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of Revision No.07R/2025/77- 3099/313/2025 before the respondent no.1." It has also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar matters this Court had passed an order dated 19.09.2025, a copy of which has been brought on record as part of Annexure-7 at running page-84 of the petition. It is urged that the petitioner is also entitled to similar relief. At this stage, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that in so far as the expedition of the revision pending before the State Government is concerned he has no objection for its expedition. However, it is stated that the interim relief as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on similar order, may not be available to the petitioner as the issue as to whether the revisional authority in the first place has any right to grant any such interim protection hence, if the revisional authority does not have the right to grant interim relief then any attempt on the part of the petitioner indirectly get an interim protection from this Court is also not appropriate. It has also been submitted that if at all any interim protection is to be granted then it be only for the respondent no.1, since the word 'respondents' if used would also include the Tehsildar who is also a party to the proceedings and the recovery certificate which has been issued by the Tehsildar will automatically come to standstill, hence, this Court may take note of the aforesaid submissions. Having considered the aforesaid submissions of the respective parties and as far as the revision is concerned, it is directed that the respondent no.1 shall decide the revision most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of copy of this order is placed before the respondent. Since, the application for interim relief is also pending before the respondent no.1 and in light of the objections raised by Sri Mehrotra, this Court finds that if any observation is made by this Court in context with the preliminary objection raised by Sri Mehrotra then it would impact the proceedings/disposal of the application for interim relief before the A227 No. 5907 of 2025 2 respondent no.1. Hence, without making any observations on merit, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice can be met by providing interim protection to the extent that for a period of three weeks or till the disposal of the application for interim relief whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. It is also made clear that this interim protection is only for a period of three weeks within which the respondent no.1 shall decide the application for interim relief. It is also provided that the respondent shall be entitled to raise all objections including the preliminary objections before the respondent no.1 which shall be taken note of while deciding the application for interim relief. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. September 26, 2025 Harshita A227 No. 5907 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench