HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6889 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Order on application for amendment 1. Heard on application for amendment. 2. Cause shown in the application for amendment duly supported by an affidavit, is sufficient. 3. Application for amendment is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment as prayed during the course of the day. Heard on application for impleadment. 1. Heard on application for impleadment. 2. Cause shown in the affidavit in support of application for impleadment is sufficient. 3. Accordingly, application for impleadment as prayed, is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary impleadment during the course of the day. Order on memo of the writ petition. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State respondents no.1 and 9, and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.8. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ghulam Mohammad Kamil, Narendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Smt. Seema Patwa .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Siddartha Nagar And Others .....Respondent(s) 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents no. 2 to 7, is dispensed with. 3. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed with following prayer:- "wherefore, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the learned U.P. Board of Revenue, Lucknow to expedite the hearing of interim relief matter filed in Revision No. 1818 of 2025- Basti (Smt. Shakrunnisa and others Vs. Smt. Anupama Bakshi and others) (Computerized No. R20251714001818), within a time specified by this Hon'ble Court, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the petition." 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the revision preferred by the petitioner has been admitted but no interim order has been passed on the application for interim relief while on the other hand interference is being caused by the respondents on the disputed property for which there is requirement for expeditious disposal of the interim relief application. He further submits that the respondents have been served. 5. Learned State counsel does not oppose the aforesaid prayer. 6. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid submissions the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.9 to consider and decided the application for interim relief with expedition, say within next six weeks. 7. In case, it is not possible to decide the same within the time prescribed above, he shall decide the same within two weeks thereafter. 8. It is further provided that in case it is not possible to decide the application for interim relief the respondent No.9 shall consider passing ad interim injunction if a case is so made out. December 15, 2025 Muk A227 No. 6889 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench