.HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 4017 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Pal Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri T.P. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent no. 5-Gram Sabha. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 1 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Kushinagar to summon the record of the Consolidation Officer Padrauna, Kushinagar from the Consolidation Officer and decide the revision being Revision No. 360 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. 202534054400000360), Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others connected with Revision No. 361/2025 (Computerized Case No. 2025340544000003), Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others, under Section 48(1) U.P. Consolidation and Holding Act, pending before the respondent no. 1 and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 i.e. Consolidation Officer Padrauna, District Kushinagar to decide the Case Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Pal Singh, Harish Chandra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti Shankar .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) No. 198 of 2004, Shankar Vs. Gram Sabha Bulahawa, under Section 9(A) U.P. Consolidation and Holding Act, pending before the respondent no. 3. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and restraining the respondents do not interfere the peaceful possession over the land in dispute. 3. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case. 4. To award cost of the petition to the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, petitioner was ordered to be recorded over the plot in question after expunging the entry of Banjar in respect to the plot in question. He further submitted that repeated restoration application filed against the order were rejected, but Gaon Sabha filed another application, which has been allowed in arbitrary manner. He next submitted that petitioner has filed two revisions under Section 48 of the U.P.CH. Act against the order allowing the restoration application and restoring the case under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act on its original number. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued for expeditious disposal of aforementioned two revisions under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act and till the disposal of revision interim protection be granted in favour of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Sri T.P. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that no interference is required in the matter as revision filed by the petitioner is still pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. WRIB No. 4017 of 2025 2 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that revisions under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioner is pending before the respondent no. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no. 1- Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the aforementioned two revisions under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. October 27, 2025 Neetu WRIB No. 4017 of 2025 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad