HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3980 of 2025 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Dan Bahadur Yadav, Mr. Ravi Shankar Yadav, learned counsels for the petitioner, Mrs. Archana Srivastava, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Tehsildar/S.D.M. Sadar, Meerut, UP, as respondent no. 5. 3. Brief fact of the case is that proceeding under Section 38 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated at the instance of Roop Kishore Mathur which has been registered as Case No. 6831 of 2021 before Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar, Meerut. One revision was filed by petitioner Dharam Pal before the Board of Revenue for an expeditious disposal of the proceedings under Section 38 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which has been ultimately decided by Board of Revenue vide order dated 25.08.2025. Hence, this petition for following relief:- "(A) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Prayagraj, U.P. in Case No. MIS/ 1316/ 2023/ Meerut (Dharam Pal v. Sunil Kumar Vohra & Ors.) (Annexure P-10). (B) Issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from raising or permitting any construction, demolition, alteration, transfer or creation of third- party interest in respect of the property comprised in Khewat No. 215, Khasra No. 6041, admeasuring 9 Bigha 5 Biswa, Nai Sadak Garh Road, Meerut, U.P., and to maintain status quo with regard to the nature and possession of the said property till disposal of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar, Ravi Shankar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Srivastava Dharam Pal Singh .....Petitioner(s) Nagar Nigam Meerut And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner's application under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure P-9). (C) Direct the respondent authorities to decide the pending application under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in a time bound manner as already directed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P-9) Or This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the District Magistrate, Meerut, along with the committee constituted vide Office Order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-8), to forthwith complete the enquiry as mandated therein and place on record before this Hon'ble Court, withjin a time-bound period, a true and complete report regarding the petitioner's complaint of illegal encroachment and construction over the disputed land. (D) Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed in illegally and arbitrary manner by the Board of Revenue, as such the same should be set aside. He further submits that proper direction be issued to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Meerut to decide the pending proceedings under Section 38 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and till the disposal of the proceeding the status-quo should be maintained by the parties. He further submits that the Board of Revenue has granted interim protection in the revision but without any application for recalling or vacating or modifying the order, the interim protection granted by the Board of Revenue has been withdrawn. 5. On the other-hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submit that no interference is required in the matter. He further submits that proceedings under Section 38 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated by one Roop Kishor Mathur and petitioner has not been substituted or impleaded in the proceeding as such petitioner has no right to file writ petition before this Court. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that substitution application for substitution in place of Roop Kishor Mathur is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Meerut as such he has right to file a writ petition against the impugned order. WRIB No. 3980 of 2025 2 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that proceedings under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by the Roop Kishor is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut. 9. Considering the fact that the proceeding under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before Sub-Divisional Officer as such the same should be decided in accordance with law expeditiously. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of directing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Meerut to decide the Case No. 6831 of 2021 under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. September 25, 2025 Israr WRIB No. 3980 of 2025 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad