HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3986 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Srivastava learned Standing counsel for the state respondents and Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief: "(A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by Member, Board of Revenue U.,P. at Prayagraj in Case No. REV/3418/2025, computer case No.AL20251821003418 Vishwa Pratap and others versus Chaman Khan @ Yunish Khan and others, filed under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 contained in Annexure No.1. (B). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 to decide the revision itself within a stipulated period." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding under section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 initiated at the instance of the petitioner was decided by Sub Divisional Officer in accordance with law. He further submitted that appeal filed by private respondent has been dismissed. He submitted that in the revision filed by the Board of Revenue, interim order has been granted staying the operation of the order dated 7.11.2024 and 28.5.2025 in arbitrary manner. He submitted Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Satendra Kumar Singh, Suresh Chandra Varma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Krishna Kant Singh Chaman Khan @ Yunish Khan .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue Up And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) that proper opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to petitioner before granting the interim order. He submitted that proper direction be issued for disposal of pending revision in time bound period and interim order staying the operation of order dated 7.11.2024 and 28.5.2025 should be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for the state-respondents submitted that no interference is required in the matter as revision filed by private respondent is pending before the board of revenue and petitioner should appear in the pending revision rather writ petition before this Court. 4. I have considered argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 5. There is also no dispute about the fact that proceeding under section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been decided by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 07.11.2024 and order has been maintained in appeal. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by private respondent has been entertained and operation of the orders have been stayed by the Board of Revenue without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner although caveat was filed by petitioner before the Board of Revenue. 6. Considering the fact that proceeding under section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been decided by Sub Divisional Officer & order has been maintained in appeal coupled with and the fact that caveat was filed before the board of revenue but without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the interim order has been granted staying the operation of both orders as well as directed the opposite party to maintain status and restrained them from raising any construction over the plot in WRIB No. 3986 of 2025 2 question which is not proper on the part of board of revenue, as such the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the board of revenue to decide the aforementioned revision in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. It is further directed that till the disposal of the pending revision, effect and operation of the interim order dated is 30.7.2025 by which effect and operation of the order of Sub Divisional Officer and Additional Commissioner has been stayed as well as parties were directed to maintain status quo and restrained them from raising construction over the plot in question shall remain in abeyance. However fresh application for interim relief can be filed by revisionist of the pending revision which can be decided after affording proper opportunity of hearing of the opposite parties of the pending revision. October 10, 2025 PS* WRIB No. 3986 of 2025 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad