HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3985 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2, Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, to decide Civil Revision No. 14 of 2019 (C.No. AL201902570014, Monitoring No. 14 of 2019), under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1951, expeditiously within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, restraining the respondents, their agents, subordinates or any person claiming through them, from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over his share in Gata Nos. 342 (1-7-19 hectares) and 466 (0-10-0 hectares), Village Devali, Pargana Sadar, Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, and from conducting any measurement, demarcation, or partition proceedings during the pendency of the said revision. 3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned measurement order dated 02.06.2025 passed by SDM, Lalganj, as the same is illegal, arbitrary, and passed in disregard of the stay order of the Board of Revenue Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prashant Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sakhavat .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue Uttar Pradesh And 20 Others .....Respondent(s) dated 17.12.2018." 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that revision arising out of the partition suit, is pending before the Board of Revenue for the last about 7 years. It is further submitted that in the revision filed by the petitioner, no interim protection was granted. It is also submitted that the revision filed by the petitioner was connected with one another revision filed by a different party, wherein a time-bound interim order was granted but subsequently the revision filed by the other party was withdrawn by him, accordingly, petitioner has filed a separate stay application in his pending revision but the Board of Revenue has not passed any interim order on the application filed by the petitioner. He further submitted that appropriate direction be issued for the expeditious disposal of the petitioner's revision and till the pendency of the petitioner's revision, an interim protection be granted in favour of the petitioner. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the revision filed by the petitioner, arising out of the partition suit, is pending for the last 7 years before the Board of Revenue. 6. In view of the pendency of the petitioner's revision before the Board of Revenue, it will be proper that the Board of Revenue should decide the petitioner's revision on merit, expeditiously, in accordance with law and before deciding the petitioner's revision on merit, all the pending applications should be considered and disposed of by the Board of Revenue. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.1/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow to decide the petitioner's revision, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 2 months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties WRIB No. 3985 of 2025 2 concerned, in accordance with law. It is further directed that all the pending applications in revision shall be considered and disposed of by the Board of Revenue before deciding the revision on merit as directed above. October 13, 2025 C.Prakash WRIB No. 3985 of 2025 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad